Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 333: Biden out The Storm [2020 Edition]

(+) Yeah! (+)

so I shouldn't vote biden because democrats shouldn't take my vote for granted, instead I should vote for a third party regardless of how shitty their candidates are and whether or not they're trying to win my vote. mmhmm got it

foolm0r0n posted...

The EC is only a problem to those who think Democrats should be able to ignore small states in presidential elections.

lol

UshiromiyaEva posted...

What are they even trying to accomplish by doing this in New York?

https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1322996649430581248?s=19

They want to flex the "power" they have to own the libs

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

What are they even trying to accomplish by doing this in New York?

https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1322996649430581248?s=19

I mean, they're trying to cause havoc like usual, they want people to know they're in charge

foolm0r0n posted...

The EC is only a problem to those who think Democrats should be able to ignore small states in presidential elections. It doesn't help 3rd parties at all. From what I can tell, it only hurts them, by eliminating the risk that a 3rd party wins some small neglected state and gets a disproportionate amount of EVs.

Can you explain what the Libertarian argument for the EC is? Why do the rights of "small states" to essentially act as a bureaucratic filter for votes to suit the interests of the state trump the ones of the individual voters? Since votes only have power in the collective this cedes so much individual organizing power to state governments. Or is this something where practicality wins out over principles because you really want a third party to spike a state?

---

They're apparently doing it all over the country and think this is somehow gonna win over undecided voters...?

---

complete fucking mystery to me how the EC isn't a problem for foolmo's third party mentality when it allows the country to round 7 million votes down to 0

https://mobile.twitter.com/PittsburghPG/status/1322885591797796866

---

https://www.axios.com/trump-claim-election-victory-ballots-97eb12b9-5e35-402f-9ea3-0ccfb47f613f.html

Tuesday is going to be a trainwreck.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://www.axios.com/trump-claim-election-victory-ballots-97eb12b9-5e35-402f-9ea3-0ccfb47f613f.html

Tuesday is going to be a trainwreck.

From your link.

Between the lines: Trump advisers are more optimistic about winning than they were three weeks ago, based on my conversations with multiple senior campaign officials over the past week, including two officials with direct knowledge of sensitive internal data.
They said analyses of early-vote totals in battleground states indicate he's doing substantially worse in Iowa and Georgia compared with this point in 2016, but better than expected in Texas, Nevada, North Carolina, Arizona and Wisconsin.
Just a few weeks ago, senior Trump advisers were bearish about Wisconsin and had reduced TV advertising there to an insignificant figure. A senior campaign official told me, then, that the state didn't figure in his paths to 270 electoral votes.
But that appears to have changed. In recent days, senior Trump advisers have privately expressed growing optimism about Wisconsin, based on their analysis of early vote data.

I would be curious to see what data they have regarding this.

---

when was the soonest call that Trump won in 2016

Wikipedia timeline says he was the projected winner at 2:45am EST although I remember everyone losing hope by about midnight (particularly remembering that live episode of The Late Show)

I was in Japan at the time so my timing will be particularly off!

---

Paratroopa1 posted...

lol

Yeah only Republicans are allowed to ignore small states.

---

Why would I vote for Jorgensen or Hawkins over Biden when theyre both way worse candidates?

People always focus on FPTP being the reason third parties fail (which is definitely a big part of it), but another big part is that the existent third parties suck.

---

Corrik7 posted...

From your link.

Between the lines: Trump advisers are more optimistic about winning than they were three weeks ago, based on my conversations with multiple senior campaign officials over the past week, including two officials with direct knowledge of sensitive internal data.
They said analyses of early-vote totals in battleground states indicate he's doing substantially worse in Iowa and Georgia compared with this point in 2016, but better than expected in Texas, Nevada, North Carolina, Arizona and Wisconsin.
Just a few weeks ago, senior Trump advisers were bearish about Wisconsin and had reduced TV advertising there to an insignificant figure. A senior campaign official told me, then, that the state didn't figure in his paths to 270 electoral votes.
But that appears to have changed. In recent days, senior Trump advisers have privately expressed growing optimism about Wisconsin, based on their analysis of early vote data.

I would be curious to see what data they have regarding this.

if they're drawing conclusions from early vote data they're in for a particularly rude awakening.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://www.axios.com/trump-claim-election-victory-ballots-97eb12b9-5e35-402f-9ea3-0ccfb47f613f.html

Tuesday is going to be a trainwreck.

Hey, all of this is perfectly normal. Remember how in 2004 we didn't know who the election on Election Night, so W claimed Kerry rigged the election and tried to get his supporters to start a civil war? Heck, I bet Obama was planning even worse things if the deep state hadn't made his fake wins so convincing.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

when was the soonest call that Trump won in 2016

Wikipedia timeline says he was the projected winner at 2:45am EST although I remember everyone losing hope by about midnight (particularly remembering that live episode of The Late Show)

I was in Japan at the time so my timing will be particularly off!

in the politics containment topic it seemed to be around when florida was called for trump, whenever that was.

(also rereading that topic, i can report that the politics containment topic has rarely - if ever - been so insufferable as when trump won.)

(also muffin said "calling it now michelle obama will win in 2020" lol)

---

Assuming Biden wins, how long do you think it'll take republicans to abandon Trump?

---

foolm0r0n posted...

Both parties have shown some big-tentedness in this case. Republicans with tea party and Democrats with the leftists. The only reason Biden is out here virtue signaling is because of the internal threat that AOC and such have raised, and the threat of independent left voters legit not voting for Biden. Biden has essentially been made to fight for a 3rd party faction in this way. Same thing with Trump and his anti-war anti-establishment rhetoric that won him the election.

Yes, Trump lied about 100% of it, and Biden is also lying, but you have to recognize that the only reason these 2-party candidates even try at all is because of pressure from independents up until the day of the actual vote. (There's the much bigger issue of holding elected officials accountable after they lie, which is way more difficult and and isn't solved by voting reform.)

This is also why it's crucial that Biden isn't seen as a leader or even an ally of progressives. That's how the movement gets taken over and neutralized from the inside.

Disagree. Since 2010 - and that very Tea Party! - the Republican Party has trended towards increasingly acting solely as a party for white men and the identity and grievance politics that flow from that. To that end they have enacted purity tests and ejected any who dare stand in the way and speak out against it (Amash being driven from the party, the neocons/Lincoln Project being cast out/walking out [put aside whether neocons being kicked out is a good thing in a vacuum for now, we're talking solely about coalition], the vitriol at Romney, etc.) Meanwhile, the Democrats have always been this super awkward alliance between minorities (racial, LGBTQ+), women, increasingly educated whites, corporatists who balked at the social policies of the GOP but are all there for the economic stuff who often have different objectives and priorities and hence often devolve into a bunch of infighting. (The GOP has its vicious infighting too, of course, but that has largely been those purity tests.) Trump slammed the accelerator into the floor on this, to be sure, but this has been brewing for a long time. It's very arguably the logical end of the Southern Strategy but you can pick out certain moments where it got kicked up a notch (Gingrich taking control in 1993 and the Tea Party/backlash to Obama/birtherism being chief among them.)

AOC/Sanders/Warren being the wing that is basically forcing Biden to the left is that very coalition style politics I'm talking about. Biden and his wing won, yes, but they demonstrated enough strength that it is being reflected through some of his policies. As for whether Biden should be considered an ally to progressives/the left... that's up to him. He certainly didn't start from there - and having y'know... won... it would be folly to think he's going to just not pursue much of what he represented in the primary. But if the left can drag him to pass progressive legislation, great. The pressure and advocating must never stop, of course, because Biden's natural inclination won't be to do these things in most cases so in that sense he's not an "ally", sure. But that doesn't mean he has to be an enemy either. I suspect you disagree with that part, but the aggressive/hostile style of politics has shown it doesn't win in the Democratic Party and so defaulting to that is just self-satisfaction and not trying to get what you can done. Now, if Biden pulls some Top Ten anime betrayal and starts blocking all progressive legislation then sure, that's another thing, but the guy has always liked working with people to do stuff. The - justified, I think - fear that this will manifest as working with the GOP is one outcome but there's no reason we can't try and work and hope it takes the form of working with those like AOC, Sanders, and Warren - and since the end of the primary it has been just that.

foolm0r0n posted...

The EC and FPTP shouldn't be in the same conversation here, they are completely different issues. RCV is a direct attack on the 2-party system and is relevant at all levels to weaken the 2-party system. The EC is only a problem to those who think Democrats should be able to ignore small states in presidential elections. It doesn't help 3rd parties at all. From what I can tell, it only hurts them, by eliminating the risk that a 3rd party wins some small neglected state and gets a disproportionate amount of EVs.

The EC is a problem to the idea that every voter has an equal voice. Full stop. That's my problem with it and why it needs to go.

To indulge the "tactics" side of this I think you're wrong in practice here because the public has its outsized focus on national politics. As a result, third parties often put outsized focus on an utterly futile battle in presidential elections. This is true for all parties, really, though you could argue the real problem is the attention/focus of the public looking to the President above all else. It is relevant to this conversation insofar as that assuming the goal of supporters of these parties is to elect one of them President, the EC adds the additional hurdle of putting all plurality victories in the hands of the House - which, in all likelihood barring the major reform I think needs to happen first, will be utterly dominated by Democrats and Republicans who surely will not be all that receptive to handing their votes to those third parties when they can vote for their own candidate there.

I'll agree that the EC is less important than FPTP when it comes to the success of third-parties though, absolutely, simply by the nature that it decides a single winner in the end so even another bandaid like proportional allocation of EVs wouldn't really help them out here because it's not like a 250-240-48 split in the EV would mean they get 9% of the Presidency.

---

Pretty sure "all hope is lost" starting sinking in in 2016 when the Florida Panhandle came in and was a bloodbath in Trump's favor. It was 100% there by the time of The Late Show with Colbert (11:35 PM EST), as mentioned.

---

xp1337 posted...

The pressure and advocating must never stop, of course, because Biden's natural inclination won't be to do these things in most cases so in that sense he's not an "ally", sure. But that doesn't mean he has to be an enemy either. I suspect you disagree with that part, but the aggressive/hostile style of politics has shown it doesn't win in the Democratic Party and so defaulting to that is just self-satisfaction and not trying to get what you can done.

I'm curious as to what you think pushing Biden left looks like, because from my perspective, aggression is the only thing that does work. Primarying out centrist Dems is inherently hostile. Similarly, when the time comes to pass progressive legislation, the left can only gain leverage by blocking legislation they deem insufficient until their demands are met, forcing the moderates to have to appeal to either progressives or Republicans to pass bills. This is up to and including causing government shutdowns. It won't exactly be nice!

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I'm curious as to what you think pushing Biden left looks like, because from my perspective, aggression is the only thing that does work. Primarying out centrist Dems is inherently hostile. Similarly, when the time comes to pass progressive legislation, the left can only gain leverage by blocking legislation they deem insufficient until their demands are met, forcing the moderates to have to appeal to either progressives or Republicans to pass bills. This is up to and including causing government shutdowns. It won't exactly be nice!

By primarying Congressional Dems who are way too right for their seat, actually! (Feinstein, etc. Not Manchin, again, for their seat.)

Edit: When I say hostile I mean "well I'll just not vote [in the general] if my candidate doesn't win" and the in-your-face super aggressive outreach style you sometimes saw in the primaries. I understand the appeal. It often feels like you're slamming your head into a wall repeatedly but it just don't work electorally as we have all seen.

I highly doubt Biden would block what a Dem Congress sends to him so you work to ensure that that Congress is as progressive as possible. When that's not an option because you're not in an election cycle, you grit your teeth, swallow your pride a bit, and work as hard as you can to try and convince those moderate Dems to get something done. You're not always going to succeed, you're never going to get exactly what you want by nature of having to compromise with them, but you do what you can. Marathon, not a sprint, etc.

Look to AOC to see a masterclass of how you do this.

---

https://twitter.com/bluestein/status/1323034789251788800?s=19

Wonder how many of these people will be dead soon?

A rally in Rome was cancelled today due to the presence of armed Trump supporters.

---

For some reason the Google link for 538 goes straight to Minnesota instead of the national, and I keep freaking out for a second seeing Biden at 95.

---

Also to expand on that a little wrt to legislation, there's also some reading of the room. There has to be an acknowledgement there is a time to accept a compromise.

Take your shutdown example. It may be one thing to threaten this privately, but if you know in your heart of hearts that the Dems - being the party interested in governing - won't allow that to happen you can't go total war and decide any concessions you're given aren't enough because if you maintain that hardline at some point they will have to abandon you to instead make concessions with Republicans and those compromises will suck.

So again, you take what you can get. You can - and should! - play hardball but you can't drive right off the cliff like the GOP does. It's an unfair asymmetric part of the parties but it's the natural consequence of the Democrats believing in government and governing and the Republicans not. To them driving off the cliff is just fine, if not actually preferable to their writ-large belief against government and its ability to help people. It's not a tactic that can truly be emulated by Democrats.

---

https://twitter.com/m1dn7ghtrider/status/1323020722286010369?s=21

Where did this trend of Trumpers lined up at a choke point to ambush Democrats start?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/m1dn7ghtrider/status/1323020722286010369?s=21

Where did this trend of Trumpers lined up at a choke point to ambush Democrats start?

Well, Trump openly praised the Texas truck gang trying to run the Biden bus off the road, so I guess other gangs of assholes were inspired

---

xp1337 posted...

Also to expand on that a little wrt to legislation, there's also some reading of the room. There has to be an acknowledgement there is a time to accept a compromise.

Take your shutdown example. It may be one thing to threaten this privately, but if you know in your heart of hearts that the Dems - being the party interested in governing - won't allow that to happen you can't go total war and decide any concessions you're given aren't enough because if you maintain that hardline at some point they will have to abandon you to instead make concessions with Republicans and those compromises will suck.

So again, you take what you can get. You can - and should! - play hardball but you can't drive right off the cliff like the GOP does. It's an unfair asymmetric part of the parties but it's the natural consequence of the Democrats believing in government and governing and the Republicans not. To them driving off the cliff is just fine, if not actually preferable to their writ-large belief against government and its ability to help people. It's not a tactic that can truly be emulated by Democrats.

I think it's more that the act of hardball you're describing is going to be viewed as inherently hostile - and that has to be leaned into. Yes, total war with no concessions is bad, but total war with concessions is what needs to happen. That and the primary thing, the mainstream Democrats aren't exactly happy that they're being primaried out by progressives! You can tell there is a bit of a grudge there. From the outside we can sit here and say this is all well and good electoral politics. But the party isn't going to see it that way, and that's why I say progressives will have to aggressively (and strategically) pick big fights.

You mentioned AOC and I think she knows all this to an extent, and has importantly branded herself as a Democrat. It's just that she also knows progressives effectively have no leverage right now. But you can look into Jayapal's proposed reforms to the Progressive Caucus undergoing now, which is basically making moves to enable the voting bloc to have this kind of power if Dems take control of both houses.

edit: good reader on it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-democrats-liberals-biden/2020/11/01/0d7a527c-1abb-11eb-aeec-b93bcc29a01b_story.html

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I think it's more that the act of hardball you're describing is going to be viewed as inherently hostile - and that has to be leaned into. Yes, total war with no concessions is bad, but total war with concessions is what needs to happen. That and the primary thing, the mainstream Democrats aren't exactly happy that they're being primaried out by progressives! You can tell there is a bit of a grudge there. From the outside we can sit here and say this is all well and good electoral politics. But the party isn't going to see it that way, and that's why I say progressives will have to aggressively (and strategically) pick big fights.

You mentioned AOC and I think she knows all this to an extent, and has importantly branded herself as a Democrat. It's just that she also knows progressives effectively have no leverage right now. But you can look into Jayapal's proposed reforms to the Progressive Caucus undergoing now, which is basically making moves to enable the voting bloc to have this kind of power if Dems take control of both houses.

Gotcha. Let me amend what I said. You can't be hyper-aggressive all the time on everything. Strategically? Absolutely.

---

I really like Pramila Jayapal, I feel like she weirdly doesn't get as much press as she ought to even though she's like basically an honorary squad member (progressive woman POC in the house, just came two years earlier)

Anyway, I was going to wait until tomorrow or Tuesday for this but I'm impatient and it's incredibly hard to believe anything can shake me from this map really.

-(Almost certainly) Final Election Prediction-

Presidential: https://www.270towin.com/maps/ype8k
Senate: https://www.270towin.com/2020-senate-election/qyYBRq
House: Modest Dem gain. Let's say +13 to 245. That's a nice, round number. No district by district thing because so many races still.

Notes: Presidential map is very similar to my previous one from a few days/week ago. In fact the totals still add up to 351-187. The differences were me adjusting the Likely/Leans a bit (and adding Tilt). This actually makes it a slightly weaker map for Biden than before IIRC with some caveats. First of all, the different classifications is more of a confidence level than it is an actual prediction of the final margin - there's obviously a fair deal of correlation there but I labelled them with confidence foremost in my mind. I downgraded PA from Likely to Lean. If you told me a few months ago that PA would be the soft spot in the blue wall and not WI I'm not sure I'd believe you but it appears to be that. It's still a fairly strong Lean though.

I added Tilt as a color shade to this one specifically because while I do have PA as Lean now, I feel it's a strong Lean if that makes sense. NC shares this designation (though not as strong in my mind) and I added in Tilt to differentiate this from Florida (would be Lean if this state were not named Florida), Georgia (I still believe), and ME-2 (in a way I feel like in a Trump overperformance to this map, ME-2 goes his way first.) Meanwhile, MI and WI I would characterize as "Strong Likely" and really I initially made them Safe but I think 2016 PTSD made me change them back. I'm feeling good on AZ so it also got that status and NE-2 also achieved that level.

Notably, my Safe + Likely gets Biden to 270 exactly... without PA or FL. (or any other Lean/Tilts of course.)

As for the Republican side of the map. The only difference is Texas shifting from Lean R to Tilt R and this is again more to indicate that of the TX/IA/OH trio I think Texas is the softest of the three. I still can't quite get myself to believe it happens but I believe even less in IA (DMR poll not helpful!) and OH (Ohio is a red state now y'all.)

As for the Senate one, another pretty close one but significantly my result dropped from 51-47-2 (Georgia runoffs) to 50-48-2. The culprit? Iowa. That DMR poll yo. KS/TX/AK are all labelled likely but again to use my earlier parlance "Strong Likely" basically if the 413 dream happens maybe these are interesting otherwise I expect they stay red. SC is probably a Strong Lean because I think Graham squeaks it out and that's a shame. Maybe one of MT/IA flips it wouldn't stun me but I'm feeling kinda down on the Senate right now this map makes me sad but it's where my head is at. NC and ME as Lean D because I can't quite talk myself into making Maine Likely.

Also, like... all this assumes no major fuckery which I know it's actively happening but I don't exactly know how to price in "okay scotus might throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots because 'counting all the votes' is now 'stealing the election' to Trump and the GOP now."
~~~

Monday night or ideally sometime Tuesday I'll probably try and make up a "final" map using the 538 polling averages again with the same or very similar scale as I did before. I don't expect it to have changed all that much but just so people have a control to look at if they want.

---

If you wanna know why Texas Rs are so desperate!

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/1323067872080515074?s=19

Tomorrow is going to be stressful as fuck.

---

There's a reason why I think Texas is more likely to flip than IA or OH! What's going on there is nuts. I still have it red but the turnout there is insane.

---

At this point I'm expecting Texas to go blue and Florida to go red

Because Florida

---

I kinda have a gut feeling about Texas (assuming the TX Rs don't succeed in literally stealing the election with their garbage lawsuit). I'll probably end up being wrong, but for now I believe...!

---

So if the federal judge rules to throw out those ballots in Texas, how quickly do they actually get rid of them? Do they keep them for a potential appeal or just put them straight in the trash?
---

If a third party can take a significant bloc of EVs then that prevents both of the duopoly parties from getting a majority in the EC.

---

Xeybozn posted...

So if the federal judge rules to throw out those ballots in Texas, how quickly do they actually get rid of them? Do they keep them for a potential appeal or just put them straight in the trash?

I would guess that the 5th Circuit is already monitoring this and will be ready to act within hours of the decision being made.

---

red sox 777 posted...

If a third party can take a significant bloc of EVs then that prevents both of the duopoly parties from getting a majority in the EC.

Which then throws out everyone's actual vote to the garbage House-functioning-as-Senate backup system

Hard pass on that!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Which then throws out everyone's actual vote to the garbage House-functioning-as-Senate backup system

Hard pass on that!

Unless the third party uses their EVs as leverage to get what they want. They announce their electors will vote for whichever one of the duopoly parties who will give them what they want. It'll be a coalition, like happens in the UK from time to time.

---

Protesters were blocking a freeway.

Would your feelings about this change depending on who was doing the protesting?

---

Xeybozn posted...

So if the federal judge rules to throw out those ballots in Texas, how quickly do they actually get rid of them? Do they keep them for a potential appeal or just put them straight in the trash?

They can't get rid of them there or you have to everywhere in texas.

---

I don't think I've ever been so anxious about an election. I just want to sleep for the next couple of days and wake up Wednesday Morning to headlines that read "Trump's Fired!" It largely comes down to Pennsylvania, and any number of things could go wrong. I wish Biden had a bigger lead there.

---

If Trump's zealots are blocking freeways right now, I expect a few stories about them trying to "indirectly as possible" block polling places on Tuesday.

---

Indirectly? Subtlety isn't exactly their strong suit!

---

Sure I'm likely being an unrealistic idiot, but a part of me has to presume they'll get their asses arrested if they try to block people 300 feet outside of a voting place.

My guess is they'll try to block bus routes since many people are bussed in to vote on election day, and those people sway heavily Dem.

---

CaptainOfCrush posted...

Sure I'm likely being an unrealistic idiot, but a part of me has to presume they'll get their asses arrested

Most of the police are on their side, so...

---

Hell, Trump's latest response to the Fury Road reenactment in Texas was to, in response to the FBI saying they're investigating, state that "these patriots did nothing wrong in my opinion" and that the FBI should be looking into ANTIFA.

Things will get worse before they get better.

---

https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1323082599179444224

---

Yeah that's why I don't really trust my own rationale here.

---

Paratroopa1 posted...

so I shouldn't vote biden because democrats shouldn't take my vote for granted, instead I should vote for a third party regardless of how shitty their candidates are and whether or not they're trying to win my vote. mmhmm got it

No, you should use your vote to help your cause instead of completely wasting it. It's just a potential bonus that the Ds might respect you a little bit more for it out of fear.

---