The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[MATTROSE94]

I actually have MATTROSE94 on ignore because I got sick of reading his "ironic" posts of bad analysis written seriously and deadpan which is not and never has been funny but does result in threads being derailed with unironic replies to it (really wish others would quit taking the bait though because I can still read their posts and it's insufferable.)

The fact is, I am pretty sure MATTROSE94 is not ironic at all when he makes his completely deranged takes. I agree people should stop taking the bait. Arguing with him is kind of useless.

I am actually messing around with some posters on the site by posting weird predictions and outlandish political analyses. None of my election posts are meant to be serious at this point, as I got really burned due to the 2016 election and now realize that American elections are little more than political theater. My main focus on the site now is looking back at weird posts by OC, as they are very funny to read imo.

[DC Al Fine]

Del Taichi recently made the point that:

Biden will not approach anywhere near 60% in Cobb or North Fulton, even though these counties are both becoming increasingly diverse (South Cobb is essentially an extension of West Atlanta/Douglas, it's over 60% Black.)  He may break 60% in Gwinnett only because it's the poorest, most downscale of Atlanta's northern suburban counties.  There really aren't these Romney-Clinton voters you obsess over as much as there are Romney-Clinton places.  

Also:  how come when talking about Georgia's suburban Romney-Clinton counties no one seems to give any love to South Atlanta's Henry County (even though it's the most Democratic of any of them)?  Might it have something to do with it only being 55% White and 36% college-educated?  Doesn't quite fit your narrative I guess, hmm?

Naturally, minority voters are the base of the Democratic party, particularly in southern metros like Atlanta. However, it is interesting to consider whether the county map of these big metro areas is shifting because of the white vote or the suburbanization of minorities. It's also interesting to address whether or not we should talk about shifts in the political landscape of North Fulton and Cobb in the same way we talk about shifts in Douglass and Henry.

This raises three questions:

1. How much of the 2008-2016 swing in big metro areas comes from increased minority populations and how much comes from whites flipping parties?

2. If whites are flipping parties in big metro areas, is this swing concentrated in favored quarters (like the North Atlanta suburbs) or can you see it in more downscale parts of the metro as well?

3. Regardless of swings between elections, do white voters in favored quarters consistently vote left of white voters in other parts of metro areas?

To answer these, I decided to dig into DRA data for four major metro areas with well-defined favored quarters: Dallas-Fort Worth (North Dallas/Collin/Southeast Denton), Houston (West Houston/Energy Corridor/North Fort Bend), Atlanta (North Fulton/North DeKalb/East Cobb/Forsyth), and Chicago (Streeterville to the North Shore). If I wanted to add more data, I would also take a look at Philadelphia, Seattle, and Washington. In each of these four metro areas, I determined the white vote in the 2008 election and the 2016 election in both the favored quarter and the rest of the metro area. This is what I got:

Dallas-Fort Worth
White vote, 2008, favored quarter: R+58
White vote, 2008, rest of metro: R+66
White vote, 2016, favored quarter: R+30
White vote, 2016, rest of metro: R+52

Houston
White vote, 2008, favored quarter: R+66
White vote, 2008, rest of metro: R+80
White vote, 2016, favored quarter: R+34
White vote, 2016, rest of metro: R+80

Atlanta
White vote, 2008, favored quarter: R+34
White vote, 2008, rest of metro: R+36
White vote, 2016, favored quarter: R+8
White vote, 2016, rest of metro: R+30

Chicago
White vote, 2008, favored quarter: D+48
White vote, 2008, rest of metro: D+22
White vote, 2016, favored quarter: D+60
White vote, 2016, rest of metro: D+14

After you get past the topline numbers (North Atlanta whites are probably going to vote for Biden even though sunbelt whites are absurdly conservative--~80% of Houston whites voting for McCain--wtf!), you notice a very consistent pattern: favored quarter whites ALWAYS vote left of the rest of the metro, metropolitan whites really did swing towards Hillary Clinton, and these swings have mostly happened in favored quarters. In 2008, the average favored quarter white voter was 13 points left of the rest of the metro, while in 2016, the average favored quarter white voter was 34 points left of the rest of the metro.

Metro-by-metro, white swings (2008-2016) were:

Dallas-Fort Worth
Favored quarter whites: D+28
Rest of metro whites: D+14
Relative swing of favored quarter: D+14

Houston
Favored quarter whites: D+32
Rest of metro whites: D+0 (!)
Relative swing of favored quarter: D+32

Atlanta
Favored quarter whites: D+25
Rest of metro whites: D+7
Relative swing of favored quarter: D+18

Chicago
Favored quarter whites: D+12
Rest of metro whites: R+8
Relative swing of favored quarter: D+20

What's the big takeaway?

First, there's massive internal variation in the white vote across big metro areas. Second, less upscale Romney-Clinton areas (like Henry County, GA) are moving left overwhelmingly because of the suburbanization of minorities. However, upscale wedges of metros (like the GA-400 corridor) are mostly moving left because of shifts in the white vote (some combination of the mythical Romney-Clinton voters, generational turnover, and coastal transplants). If these trends continue into the 2020s, we should be unsurprised by favored quarter counties like Collin, TX or Orange, CA voting to the left of non-favored quarter counties like Tarrant, TX or San Bernardino, CA.

So to address the original Del Taichi quote that prompted all this, North Atlanta is a Romney-Clinton place driven by Romney-Clinton voters while Henry, GA is a Romney-Clinton place driven by demographic change.

Hopefully you all find this interesting. I hope to update this after the 2020 election.

Blairite with an examination of whether Romney-Clinton areas are driven by rich whites moving left or demographic change.

[DC Al Fine]

FYI this is what a high quality post actually looks like. Not some lazy three sentence snark.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

FYI this is what a high quality post actually looks like. Not some lazy three sentence snark.

Thanks for posting a high-quality effort directly in the thread

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I wouldn't refer to the reversalist role as Sanders/Warren lite or even as reversalist. I would refer to it as Bismarckian.

It expressed a number of the points that I made as far back as 2016 in terms of how and why Trump got nominated. The disjointed message between social stability and economic turbulence of unregulated capitalism are operating at cross purposes and something had to give here, and hence you got Trump. The fact that Trump failed to deliver here is entirely because of his personal deficiencies, but it doesn't mean that these go away.

I also think it is a mistake to necessarily separate out the remnant approach from this reveralist approach as both agree that the pre-2015 GOP is dead and think the path forward on economic policy is the same. The difference is how wide a net it is going to cast and while the former casts a narrow one, political necessity dictates that the latter increasingly becomes the operative strategy. Indeed they are the same on this aspect, the difference is whether you are rallying white resentment or working to get the black percentage up in South Side Chicago to flip Illinois.  Yes, racial annimous is a powerful force but power and control are also and that along with math will dictate certain actions here. It is not inconceivable for things to evolve in this direction.

I also would caution against Rove's interpretation of McKinley for the obvious reality that McKinley was an economic nationalist and in fact he was the poster boy of the protectionist system and was able to use this rally industrial votes against the Bryan agrarianism, that was going to wipe out their industrial jobs.

Lastly, in terms of business. This is not the first time the country was dominated by a pro-free trade elite dominated by internationally oriented trading systems, foreign powers and international carters and conglomerates. That is precisely what the the Federalist Supporting Merchants of New England (destroyed by the embargo) were and the Plantation Owners of the south (destroyed by the Civil War). Also the Websterite Whig supporting Textile owners (Speaker Winthrop) were not too keen on the anti-South shift of politics in the 1850's. The businesses that didn't adapt were destroyed by the Civil War, and those that did became the dominant tycoons of the Gilded Age.

People don't understand the dynamics of nationalism and business well because they have spent years studying neoliberal and other schools with this stuff basically white washed from existence. It works like this, you destroy the internationally oriented business entities and then in their place a new crop of business and a new business mindset is created, that is nationalist and while very much in favor of pro-business policies internally are very much concerned with everything being couched on the basis of being for the good country or benefit of the country. Either directly (nobless oblige) or indirectly (success uplifting others), but all operating on a basis of a nationalist economic mindset. This was very much (more so the latter) how business in America functioned in the late 19th century mindful of being destroyed by the British Juggernaut economically with their free trade policy and the agrarians internally.  This is the "pro-business nationalism" that defined the GOP economic policy in the late 19th century and it is certainly the policy that McKinley was very much steeped into.



If you read Holt's work on the Rise and Fall of the Whig Party and his discussion on 1854 in MA, the similarities between the Whig Establishment and the Paul Ryan types and between Gardner's American Party and Trump are striking. Reading this in 2015 was what led me to predict that Trump was the disruptive agent, he was not the final end result, and I still hold that to be the case.

[President Johnson]

GeneralMacArthur at his best.

Guys, chill.  Here's ten reasons to not be a doomer.

1
Polls were wrong in 2016.  Polls have now been corrected.  All the polls you see showing Biden with big leads have a substantially more white, poorly-educated, Republican sample than in 2016.  If they were adjusted to match their 2016 profile of America they'd probably have Biden winning with Johnson-Goldwater numbers.

2
Biden will do very well among independent voters and will get a decent chunk of Republican voters, especially older voters who are still registered Republican but hate Trump.  When you see registered Democrats doing "just ok", remember that Republicans will get crushed if there's equal turnout.  They need to dominate the Democrats in the turnout game.

3
Hillary Clinton lost WI/MI/PA by around 1% in 2016.  All polling shows Biden winning those states by at least 6 points.  Those states alone are sufficient for Biden to win the election.  All he needs is a 1-point shift from 2016, and the polls have consistently shown a 7-10 point shift.

4
Joe Biden is consistently polling at or above 50% nationally and in WI/MI/PA.  In 2016, a huge factor in Hillary Clinton's loss was late movement of undecided voters into the Trump column.  Even if every single undecided voter goes for Trump, he can't overcome a 50%+ majority.

5
Hillary Clinton also lost tons of voters in 2016 to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.  Johnson got around 4% of the vote in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Arizona, Iowa, New Hampshire, NE-02, ME-02.  Stein got above 1% in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Arizona, NE-02. Write-in candidates also got 1-2% in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and NE-02. The American people love to fantasize about third party candidates doing well enough to impact the race.  Now they've seen what that looks like, and have no appetite for a round 2.  Polling consistently shows Hawkins/Jorgensen/West getting <1%.  This is an advantage Biden has over Clinton that doesn't get talked about enough -- he is battling Trump and Trump alone.

6
The Biden campaign has absolutely crushed the Trump campaign in fundraising.  Democratic candidates for Senate have absolutely crushed their Republican opponents across the nation.  This is a strong indication that the enthusiasm gap is firmly in the Democratic Party's favor, making it more likely that they overperform their polls.  In the first half of October alone, Biden has raised $130M to Trump's $43M -- a 3-to-1 difference.

7
Hillary Clinton had poor favorability numbers and lots of voters who intensely hated her.  This is part of why she had trouble clinging onto those voters on election day, and many of them decided to "give Trump a chance", voted 3rd Party, or stayed home.  Joe Biden has excellent favorability numbers -- around the same as, or better than, Obama's in 2012 -- and there's no sense of visceral hatred for him even in the furthest reaches of the far-right.  There isn't some bloc of voters who are going to suddenly jump ship at the last minute.

8
Complacency was a huge issue in 2016.  Since then, Democrats have consistently hammered the "don't get complacent" message.  Who is the person who voted Clinton in 2016, but is going to stay home in 2020?  There aren't any.  But there are plenty of people who were complacent in 2016 but are gonna turn up this year.

9
Biden has an expansive battlefield on which to play.  Even if he loses Florida, or Texas, who cares?  He's got NC, AZ, GA, IA, OH, all irons in the fire where he's polled ahead of, or even with, Donald Trump.  But he can lose ALL of those states, and still win the election, as long as he holds MI/WI/PA.

10
In spite of all her disadvantages, Hillary Clinton would still have won the 2016 election handily had she not been kneecapped at the last minute by James Comey.  We are already closer to the 2020 election than when that event happened in 2016, and a far greater number of voters have already cast their votes for Joe Biden.  There's no indication an event like that is coming -- this Hunter Biden thing appears to be Trump's last salvo and it's gone over like a lead balloon -- but even if it did come, Biden is made of teflon, and even if he wasn't, more of his people have already voted so he'd lose fewer votes.

In summary:  Biden has tons of advantages that Hillary didn't have in 2016, and has eliminated ALL of her major disadvantages.  The Democratic Party as a whole has substantial advantages this cycle that they didn't have in 2016.  And the polls, which consistently point to a Biden landslide, are very unlikely to experience errors in Trump's favor due to correcting for 2016.

So relax.  He's gonna do fine.

[VAR]

*snip*

Now she’s unskewing the polls? Her campaign is a dumpster fire.

  Sane and principled suburban Des Moines conservatives for Greenfield  

Is she trying to put the final nail in her coffin? Or has she just gone completely nuts? The fallout from the debunked conspiracy theory and soybeangate was already damning enough, but this will make waves locally and it’s certainly not the story she needs as voting is already underway. It’s like she knows she’s going to be voted out and has basically decided to throw in the towel.

What happened to her campaigning skills? I really miss the good old days of the strong Joni Ernst in 2014 who didn’t run on animal abuse, didn’t claim that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, never said that she wasn’t sure whether humans contributed to climate change or not, and didn’t embrace a ‘wild’ conspiracy theory according to which the United Nations would force farmers to abandon their land to live in cities. What happened?

[Stuart98]

Way too long to quote, but this post.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Some thoughts on Atlas Shrugged that I wrote up a while back:

1) Despite her tendency to go on and on at times, Rand has a great knack for metaphor, magical realism, and imagery. The descriptions of the collapsing society are long-winded, but almost always captivating. Things fall to pieces very gradually, mimicking how these things happen in real life (socialism always works in the beginning, when there's still a lot of wealth to seize). One great line stood out to me: "The inhabitants of New York had never had to be aware of the weather. Storms had been only a nuisance that slowed the traffic and made puddles in the doorways of brightly lit shops... Now, facing the gusts of snow that came sweeping down the narrow streets, people felt in dim terror that they were the temporary intruders and that the wind had the right-of-way."

2) The mystery is built up expertly. Lots of fake-outs, which get irritating in an effective way-- they make you want to read more. When the origin of the phrase "Who is John Galt" gets revealed, it's immensely satisfying. In the last third of the book, the pieces start to fall together intricately, and in a logical, coherent way.

3) For all I've heard about how unrealistic and silly the book is, I can't put my finger on why it feels silly. It sure does seem ludicrous at times, but I'm still waiting on the argument that empirically explains that. Some people say it's ridiculous to imagine a situation where incompetent fools seize control of a country's agriculture, killing millions in a massive famine... except that happened in China. Some people say it's silly to imagine a country where the best and brightest are persecuted because they are the best and brightest... except that happened in Cambodia. Some people claim that it's insane to say that corrupt bureaucrats who are impotent and inept in every aspect of their lives could rise to power in a country, plundering the nation's wealth for themselves and killing those who protest their rule... except that happened in Russia. I think that, without the context of communism, the book seems pretty dumb to a lot of people. I guess they'll learn just how realistic it is one way or another.

The most ridiculous part of the book is easily the "strike" itself, where the nation's most productive individuals  off to Colorado while everything decays behind them. But this is just a description of the brain drain, only with a little magical realism. Rand even accounts for this by making every nation in the world a socialist "democracy," which leaves smart people with nowhere to run. Yeah, it's exaggerated... but it's got one foot in the realm of possibility.

4) A great lead character. Why is Dagny Taggart-- a genius railway executive who constantly outshines her talentless brother-- not considered a feminist icon? Maybe it's because Rand also uses her as a channel to work through her demented sexual predilections. Still, despite a few eyebrow-raising sex scenes, I found this character compelling. She has a very rational thought process that makes her relatable and human. Like all of Rand's characters, she's an archetype and an exaggeration, but I appreciated her ruthless competence and cutting wit.

5) Rand showed incredible foresight in mocking her detractors. Her critics (who have never read her works) call her "anti-social," "psychopathic," and "egotistical," which ironically makes them sound like villains in one of her stories. This creates a feedback loop in which those who critique her fulfill her prophecies. This woman was a legit troll. I find this whole situation funny.

Now the bad:

1) Given the existence of global warming, the book hasn't aged well. It literally ends with a judge writing a new amendment to the constitution, stating that congress shall pass no law restricting free enterprise. Really, Ayn? No law at all? So those people drinking flammable fracking water in Oklahoma have no legal recourse in your perfect world? I don't think the woman grasped the concept of unintentional externalities (as evidenced by her love of cigarettes). If she'd known about climate change, she'd probably think it was awesome.

2) A distinct lack of unique characters. Every "good" (see: selfish) character is handsome/beautiful, confident, and completely without any self-doubt. Every "bad" character has a loathsome, ugly name (Wesley Mouch), and the various bureaucrats are generally indistinguishable from one another. There are a few notable exceptions, but I think there are a lot more facets to human nature that Rand didn't bother to explore here. When a worldview boils everything down to a "two kinds of people" theory, you know it's flawed. All of the conflict is external to the characters; there's very little personal growth in the story, and Rand leaves no possibility of redemption for her villains. Also, in the entire US, there is apparently only one person capable of running a bank, one person capable of mining coal, one person capable of manufacturing cars, etc. It seems extremely half-assed.

3) A sixty-page speech. This comes right before the last hundred pages of the book, and makes the conclusion feel rushed in comparison. Hey Ayn, did you know that speeches of this length are indicative of megalomania? You and Qaddafi would have been best buds. I feel no shame in saying that I skipped this part (it's the only part of the book I did this with).

4) Going off of point number two, no characters change. In Rand's world, changing is seen as a weakness, and I somewhat agree-- but one should always alter their worldview based on contradictory facts (though not based on contradictory opinions). If a villainous "looter" character had seen the error in his ways at the end, that might've made Rand's tent a little more inclusive. But I don't think she has any interest in reaching across the aisle, as evidenced by her statement that "the midpoint between right and wrong is evil." As it is, the villains do ultimately see their own errors, though by that point they're essentially beyond saving. One character, an industrialist, does go through a change-- he learns to be less generous. ayy lmao

5) Despite some predicative power, the book conjures up some caricatures that are just patently ridiculous-- not the least of which is the preeminent scientist who denounces reason. 1000 pages later, and I'm still not sure what Rand was trying to say with that character.

6) The most conclusive argument against Objectivism appears to be its followers. Rand herself testified against communists for McCarthy-- a sin I can almost forgive, considering her personal history. Paul Ryan is a Rand-lover who appears to have no understanding of insurance, health care, or government in general. Donald Trump says he read The Fountainhead, a dubious claim at best, given that the book is well beyond his attention span of 140 characters. But then again, Rand's fans include Gene Roddenberry, who created the best television series of all time, and which incorporated some elements of her philosophy. Overall though, I don't think it's fair to judge a philosophy by its adherents, which is fortunate for Rand.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Yeah it’s time to push left on fiscal issues and right on social issues.

Ew no. You really think that's what cost us in Fla and TX?

Considering you see 60 point swings in poor rural Tejano counties?

Yes lol.

I think it's pretty clear that left on economics is bad with Latinos.

Stop confusing gusanos with Latinos in general. There are two separate problems here actually, arguably three:

1) Gusano Latinos (Cubans, Venezuelans, Colombians) in South Florida who are selfish little pricks and went all in on Trump's macho persona/militant opposition to BLM. They are basically Staten Island/Jersey Shore Italians at this point in terms of their reactionary politics. At this point the Dems should tell them to piss off, consider Shalala spent her entire term sucking them off and yet the gusanos proved complete ingrates.
2) Rural Latinos in South Texas and New Mexico who are probably turned off by Democratic Party stances on cultural issues but not particularly against left-wing economics especially if they can be persuaded that they will materially benefit from it.
3) More of a turnout problem, but younger urban working-class Latinos, especially men who are left-wing on economic issues (strongly Sanders base) and culturally liberal but not particularly enamoured by "wokeness".

The Dems don't have to adopt Republican views on the Culture Wars but they have to be a genuinely big tent party and take a social liberal, civil libertarian approach on social issues.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Populist Santander

Trump acted more like a true Democrat than any of the Democrats did. Democrats, except for Bernie, wanted so badly to be the party of beautiful people that they forgot all the "dirty people" who were such an important part of their base. It's almost as if they didn't want them. Trump, for all his seemingly divisive rhetoric, genuinely doesn't care who votes for him, and was happy to appeal for votes from literally anyone, whether it was African-Americans, small business owners, farmers, or white nationalists. Democrats put Harris on the ticket because she checked the most demographic boxes, declared job done, and went back to courting neocons and suburbanites.

We can't all be born rich, and handsome, and lucky, and that's why we used to have the Democratic Party.

[bagelman]

Long story short, taking the left and the working-class for granted, an embrace of wokism, and an inability to move past the Clinton/Obama/Pelosi era.

* Deciding to put the left in a corner. Like it or not, Biden could have (and should have) brought on Chuck Rocha. Cubans were probably gone anyway (and I'm not going to tell you they're not), but I do think Bernie would have made Texas competitive and sealed up Arizona. If we're going on merit, he was the clear choice. Instead, he continued to pick Ana Navarro in their quest to simp over Reagan Republicans.

You can look towards the DNC vis-a-vis the RNC as an example. The RNC was a play to the base. The DNC was almost entirely a play to the swing voters. As I've said, there's an expectation among the Democratic establishment that the left doesn't need to be catered to. That they can just keep moving towards the center in the hopes of expanding the tent, while the left will just follow along and vote blue like good little boys and girls, because the alternative is Trump or Bush or whoever the next bogeyman will be.

There was a Congressional candidate recently in California who got into hot water because he got caught pandering to a white supremacist group. While he reposted his apology video, his consultants got caught on camera telling him not to worry about the backlash, because "Democrats will still vote blue," and they have to choose between him or Darrell Issa. 2018 Ammar Campa-Najjar would have won. He wasn't overly "woke" like AOC, but he was unabashedly to the left economically. The Ammar Campa-Najjar of 2020 tried to be everything to everyone at the same time, forgot about the people that got him there, and CA-50 is in jeopardy because of it.

* The suburban strategy is completely unsustainable on the "macro" level. There simply isn't enough college-educated voters to make up for the bleeding of the working class, and my state has proven that ticket-splitting is aliv and well.

You can look towards my state. While everyone was clapping over expanding their presidential margins and holding NH-1, they lost all of their downballot majorities. The same Republicans the Biden campaign aggressively courted didn't translate their support to state government. They lost the Executive Council 4-1, they've lost 4 Senate seats so far (including to an avowed QAnon supporter), and they lost the House. The WWC voters in the northern reaches of the state supported Republican majorities as well. I expected to lose NH-Gov, but I didn't expect Sununu to win in places like Concord and Keene.

Democrats were counting on a suburban revolt. Not only did it not happen here, but they regressed to 2016 levels. Now, Democrats' incompetence has given Republicans the pen to gerrymander my state legislature with for another ten years.

* I think there's some truth to "wokism" hurting the party. When people think of the excesses of the Democratic Party, they don't think primarily of Bernie Sanders uplifting the system. They think of Beto O'Rourke marching in to take your guns away. They think of the calls to "defund the police", which everyone except the people who use "defund the police" and "ACAB" takes the wrong way.

Democrats are losing the cultural war. I think a lot of more pro-cop people don't see things like George Floyd or Breonna Taylor happening in their town. When they think of cops (especially in rural America), they don't think of Brett Hankison or Derek Chauvin. They think of the cop in their town that gave them a break or the guy standing by protecting their schools. They don't see how corrupt the institution is, and they don't see how militarized cops are. Most people want to see corrupt cops out of a job, and they don't want cops to have access to military-style tactics and weapons. At the same time, most people like their cops.

* Biden's entire campaign apparatus failed upward. If I went into work and did as poorly as Jen O'Malley Dillon did for Beto, I would be fired. Instead, she ran arguably the most incompetent, milquetoast campaign of the cycle, and was rewarded for it with a promotion to leading the entire ****ing general election campaign. The only other candidate who came close to blowing it as hard as Beto did was nominated to the Vice Presidency.

Now we know why Abrams was pushing for her to be Vice President - she was indubitably the best candidate for the job, she defied expectations and lost to GOP f**kery, and she stood for something. With full hindsight (read: me seeing Pressley jump on the "defund" s***wagon), she was the clear choice.

* The Democratic Party is permanently in a state of reliving nostalgia. I think the "brunch Democrat" stereotype is true to some extent. There's a subsection of the party who just wants things to go back to normal. They saw Biden as the most "electable" because he was the third term of Obama. They saw Hillary as a way to go back to the 90s, when everything was fine and good and civil and Democrats and Republicans could live together in perfect harmony.

If the last twelve years haven't told you that, there's a new normal. You're up against a cold, calculating son of a bitch who will do anything and everything to push his and his party's agenda. We don't need Dianne Feinsteins. We need people like me and MacArthur. The brunch Democrats need to recognize we're in the trenches now. And if we don't fight back, we die.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Hey guys, can we not start the 2024 primary yet? How about we acknowledge that there are definite disagreements within the Democratic Party (and we should discuss them without eating each other alive), but that moderates and progressives need to have each other’s backs to have any chance of winning elections?

I agree that we all need to get better at messaging, and it’s fine to criticize AOC’s messaging. Calling one another “enemies” doesn’t help anyone.

[bagelman]

Hey guys, can we not start the 2024 primary yet? How about we acknowledge that there are definite disagreements within the Democratic Party (and we should discuss them without eating each other alive), but that moderates and progressives need to have each other’s backs to have any chance of winning elections?

I agree that we all need to get better at messaging, and it’s fine to criticize AOC’s messaging. Calling one another “enemies” doesn’t help anyone.

This is not the type of type of post that belongs here. It's clearly correct but this is for long, effort posts.

[MATTROSE94]

I find his heartlessness when dealing with covid one of the main reasons why he lost reelections as it proved that the man didn't truly care about the American people. He could have done a lot more, but chose to play his little game. Yes, I'll condemn him on covid as he could have did a hell of a lot more to stop it at the federal level. There's a lot of stuff I agree policy wise with Trump but he was kind of a jerk and kind of heartless. For this he lost.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

One of the most obvious takeaways is that Trumpism's broader goal of arresting societal trends away from conservative and traditional orthodoxies is a massive flop. While conservative rage at cultural progressivism has paid off in terms of bolstering structural political advantages and solidifying loyal footsoldiers opposed to the "liberal elite," it has once again failed to contain the leftward swings that have continued unabated for the past two decades. Donald Trump was the most direct confrontation to the liberal hegemony and its institutions yet, raging against the media, academia, urbanites, experts, the professional managerial class, and promising to turn back the clock for the forgotten patriots of "Real America" who've been shunted to the cultural margins by the reigning social order.

This earned him two popular vote losses and an underperformance of the generic Republican ticket both times, a liberal order that doubled down on resisting his assaults, a break towards the Democrats in formerly conservative educated suburbs that used to constitute Republican strongholds, and an acceleration away from conservative impulses on social policy and cultural views. Society swung against him on just about every major paradigm he wished to instill and lurched further into progressive causes. Views on immigration shifted left, views on race relations shifted left, views on gender inequality and sexual harassment shifted left, views on criminal justice reform and the police shifted left, views on drugs shifted left, views on Confederate monuments and other controversial historical figures shifted left; can anybody name a single sociocultural issue where more people moved towards the views Trump was promoting perhaps other than an increasing appetite for populism in general? I suppose views on abortion are holding steady, but the pro-life movement has been facing the uphill on that for decades.

Additionally, everything that was a success for conservatives that he implemented could have been pushed by literally any Republican president, while everything that he tried to implement that was directly tied to his ideological project (to the degree that a coherent one existed) will be undone by the next administration and is unlikely to be pursued as vigorously by future conservative ones. The religiously unaffiliated are still growing and Christianity is on the decline, social progressivism and secularism are rising instead of reversing, "socialism" is about as popular as it's ever been since the end of the Cold War despite the incessant fearmongering, and Millenials are retaining their Democratic preference even as they age into their family bearing years while Gen Z looks set to be even more left-leaning in their policy and cultural preferences. There is not a single element I can think of within society that Donald Trump promised his constituents he would act as their righteous champion for where he actually managed to restore the status quo ante. Broader Republican advantages of overrepresentation within the political system remain, but that's done little so far to notch any consistent reversals of increasing liberalism and the former rallying cry of big government rollback that used to animate the conservative movement is largely dead and mostly utilized now as a more cynical tool to exploit specific grievances of spoils distribution than a bona fide schema for reform.

And now Trump will be remembered as a one-term failed president, the first one-termer in my lifetime. Democrats may not have had the big win they hoped for, and are clearly going to continue to face structural headwinds going forward, but that pales in comparison to the headwinds Republicans are still facing on the cultural front. Trump promised to stick it to the system and upend the prevailing social order in favor of "traditional" America. Instead, hegemonic liberalism solidified its position as the dominant trendsetter and conservatism continues its long retreat.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I've been on this forum since 2006, if I was talking nonsense, I wouldnt been on here, which is for intelligential purposes.

Some people cant take the fact that Trump is losing by 15 pts and a Supermajority Senate is possible just like Dems won in 2008. The reverse was true in 2010 and Boehner won 60 House seats in 2010, in a Recession Bush W caused by deficits and tax cuts. I as a consumer do not benefit from tax cuts from the rich

This belongs here. OC is saying things that the average voter thinks but is too afraid to say. And he is more in touch with the average voter than 99.9% of Atlas bloggers.

No, a Democratic supermajority did not materialize and the models were, once again, wrong. But it's hard for Democrats to run on "vote for mask mandates and also we'll ban schools, bars, and sports". Like it or not, those are the three things on voters' minds.

[President Johnson]

Denial: “Biden didn’t win the election! Mail in ballots are fraudulent and Trump actually won in a landslide! Trump is still my president, no matter what the fake news media says! ” <———— The bottom 80th percentile of Trump supporters will not move past this stage.

Anger: “Trump lost because the DEMONRATS lied about him nonstop for 4 years and exaggerated this coronavirus hoax! America really is a stupid country for electing a guy with dementia that’s just gonna be a puppet for Kamala Harris!” <———— The 80th-90th percentile of Trump supporters will not move past this stage.

Bargaining: “Trump losing this election is fine since the Democrats will expose how incompetent and corrupt they are and then Trump will win in a landslide in 2024!” <———— The 90th-97th percentile of Trump supporters will not move past this stage.

Depression: “It’s all over! Trump was the only one who could save America, and now that he has been defeated, America will forever be controlled by the radical left Marxist Antifa Democrat Party ” <———— The 97th-99th percentile of Trump supporters will not move past this stage.

Acceptance: “Trump lost the 2020 election fair and square. Biden might not have been my preferred candidate, but I should be optimistic about his presidency and try to treat him fairly.” <———— Maybe 4 or 5 Trump supporters will reach this stage.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Denial: “Biden didn’t win the election! Mail in ballots are fraudulent and Trump actually won in a landslide! Trump is still my president, no matter what the fake news media says! ” <———— The bottom 80th percentile of Trump supporters will not move past this stage.

Anger: “Trump lost because the DEMONRATS lied about him nonstop for 4 years and exaggerated this coronavirus hoax! America really is a stupid country for electing a guy with dementia that’s just gonna be a puppet for Kamala Harris!” <———— The 80th-90th percentile of Trump supporters will not move past this stage.

Bargaining: “Trump losing this election is fine since the Democrats will expose how incompetent and corrupt they are and then Trump will win in a landslide in 2024!” <———— The 90th-97th percentile of Trump supporters will not move past this stage.

Depression: “It’s all over! Trump was the only one who could save America, and now that he has been defeated, America will forever be controlled by the radical left Marxist Antifa Democrat Party ” <———— The 97th-99th percentile of Trump supporters will not move past this stage.

Acceptance: “Trump lost the 2020 election fair and square. Biden might not have been my preferred candidate, but I should be optimistic about his presidency and try to treat him fairly.” <———— Maybe 4 or 5 Trump supporters will reach this stage.

No.

Maybe in the Atlas Hilarity thread, but not here.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Yeah the entire post-election discourse around Latinx is dumb. People on both sides are fixating on the word itself and not what it represents: highly educated activist language and worldview out of step with communities they purport to represent. Use of the world Latinx is a cheap way to highlight this problem the Democratic Party has, but far more substantive is stuff like Julian Castro forcing other Democratic Presidential candidates to support decriminalising illegal border crossings (because that's what Hispanic voters apparently wanted), or Kamala Harris thinking she can win the black vote from Biden by attacking him over his opposition to busing in the 70s, or liberals in media obsessing over Trump saying racist stuff and not his reactionary economic agenda. Ironically this Latinx discourse is being sucked into the same high info culture war whirlpool that the median voter just doesn't care that much about. It would be more helpful if people talked about the disconnect between an educated, highly socially engaged Democratic party apparatus and the median voter who is older and non-college educated in ways that are both more general and more concrete and meaningful. What are the policy areas and actual messaging strategies where there is a disconnect and how can that be bridged?

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

To be fair, this is an easy-to-see instance of voters protesting when protesting was cheap, i.e. everyone knew Holcomb was winning. A Republican State House Representative even endorsed Rainwater (he's since been kicked out of caucus).

There's an all things Hoosier megathread where myself and a few others discuss this race as it progressed. But pretty much state Democrats could not get anyone to run for a long time. The professional political journalists through 2019 were commenting no major party had ever gone this long without a declared candidate. Up came Myers as a kind of C-list candidate. You had a few State Senators for the Democrats pretend they were running but never file (one of them plus another undeclared candidate are now running for State Party Chair). Myers could never raise money. He blames Covid but he was unable to raise money before lockdowns either. The smart more left money in the state put their funds with Weinzapfel for Attorney General instead of with Myers.

Race progressing. Then sometime in August or whenever, Change Research publishes a poll saying Holcomb 36, Myers 30, Rainwater 24. For a governor's race that had seen little to no attention, it was a bit of an earthquake. The poll safe to say was an incredible outlier, but it did give Rainwater a ton of attention and money to fund his campaign that he otherwise did not get. Holcomb ignored this threat somewhat but he did raise the "opening stage" from Stage 4.5 to Stage 5 before the election, and now that we're after the election in the face of rising numbers, he hatcheted back down.

I've hitched my horse to the Libertarian Party to grow it long-term, but I can tell you a lot of died in the wool Republicans that told me they voted for him. The places Myers finished 3rd is mostly rural counties where the Democratic Party in those places is just dead. My county Myers finished 3rd and county Democrats didn't run a single candidate for county office. Their state legislature nominees around 20%. Percentage numbers for my county are Holcomb 66, Rainwater 18, Myers 16. Remove straight ticket votes (which is incredibly damning for Myers considering he had that in-built advantage over Rainwater) and the numbers are Holcomb 55, Rainwater 29, Myers 16.

I'm doing a county-by-county breakdown of votes ex-straight ticket votes since Governor was not the top of the ballot race. This requires looking at every county's election results.

At the moment with incomplete numbers (Marion and Lake are already included), this is what I have:

Total votes: Holcomb 55.1, Myers 34.3, Rainwater 10.6
Ex-straight ticket total votes: Holcomb 55.2, Myers 26.4, Rainwater 18.3

When I finish I'll try to make a map of where Rainwater finished ahead of Myers both with and without straight ticket voting.

I'm going to make the case at the 2021 Libertarian State Convention of how to capitalize on this. Per Indiana Code, the major political parties in each political subdivision is based on the top two performing parties in the Secretary of State race, which is next up in 2022. (This is also the race Indiana bases ballot access for 4 years on, you have to get 2% or more.) But if the Libertarian Secretary of State nominee could continue Rainwater's performance and finish 2nd in some of these counties, per currently existing Indiana state law they should replace the Democratic Party for appointment to county election boards. It'd be more difficult than this governor's race due to the large number of votes Rainwater received from people upset with Holcomb which you would think would not transfer to Secretary of State but the incredibly low levels of support Democrats have in a bunch of counties is not changing anytime either. I've been told there's a lot of interest in creating new county chapters for the Indiana Libertarian Party.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Marjorie Taylor-Greene got elected in GA-14, a district Trump won by 53 points.  Marjorie only beat her opponent by 49 points.  I don't have CD-level results in front of me for Georgia, but I would assume she substantially underperformed Trump given 2020 trends in districts like hers.  This despite that fact that her opponent dropped out of the race in September due to MTG supporters making threats to him and his family.

Marjorie Taylor-Greene is an extreme candidate who is so fringe within her party that other candidates are embarrassed to be associated with her.  Republicans cringe whenever she makes a public statement.  Democrats would like her to be on TV as often as possible and become the face of the Republican Party.  They will try to tie other candidates to her in the 2022 cycle.

She won her election, and she did it by compromising as little as possible -- that is, by running as a QAnon nut who's openly racist, worships authoritarians, and obsesses over bizarre conspiracies.  I suppose she would rather win by 47% by being her true self, rather than winning by 55% by pretending to be sane and decent.  She's probably happy to get 73% and keep the fight alive for, well, whatever it is she's fighting for.

So what does all that say about her?  What's your point?  Is Marjorie Taylor-Greene happy?  I'm sure she is.  But does her getting elected prove anything?  No.

I think you're just responding to an argument that nobody's making.  Nobody's saying that Ilhan Omar only getting 64% is some kind of electoral emergency and she needs to change her message, or even that she should be disappointed.  The point is that Ilhan Omar and her friends keep telling us that they have some super-special winning message, that they're the future of the party, and that if we'd only listen to them and adopt all their policies and talking points, we would win far more elections.

This is in contrast to everyone else, who keeps saying "your policies are terrible, your rhetoric is awful, you're an embarrassment to the rest of the party, you drag everybody else down with you, and adopting your techniques nationwide would be absolutely suicidal.  Please stop trying to shove them down our throats."

And their underperformance is just more proof of that.  If they really had some special sauce, they would be adding voters to the pool.  They'd be overperforming the top of the ticket and overperforming relative to other candidates.  Instead, they drastically underperformed.  Good for them that they can say crazy stuff and still get re-elected?  Good for them for refusing to hide their insanity even though it's electoral poison?  Fine.  But don't come telling us that candidates in R+3 districts, or even D+10 districts, should adopt this electoral poison.  Ilhan Omar would get absolutely stomped to pieces in a swing district, and would even probably lose in a Likely D district.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I pay my homage to playwriting skills.

I don't disagree, but this creates an asymmetrical situation where those public officials who want  Covid Safety practices have to abide by them, while those who don't are free to do what they like.

I think this creates a perverse incentive that needs to be eliminated and the way to do that is that when hospital resources are scarce (like now) those who argued against public safety rules should go to the back of the line for health treatment.  As one prominent medical ethicist argues 'If people want to argue 'give me liberty or give me death' they should be held to it.  They shouldn't be able to turn around and say 'liberty didn't work out so now give me a ventilator.''

I always wonder how these ethicists think this supposed to work.

SCENE
Mid second wave. The pandemic is out of control abd the medical system is on the brink of collapse.Some guy is having trouble breathing in an emergency room. Enter the triage nurse, sporting a Karen haircut

Nurse: Sir, before we admit you for treatment, I need to use my already extremely limited time in this overstretched hospital to go through your last nine months of social media to see if you posted any anti-mask or anti-lockdown sentiment. Let's start with your Twitter handle.

Patient: Laboured breathing

Nurse: Sir, your Twitter handle?

Patient: Wheezes out something incomprehensible

Nurse: Sir, you'll have to speak up, I can't treat you unless I review your social media and ensure it's free of wrongthink. Sir, your Twitter handle?

Patient: Dies

END SCENE

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The author argues that religion can be good or bad.

Well, yes. Asking if "religion" is "good or bad" is like asking if politics is good or bad, or if art is good or bad.

I wasn't sure how to title this thread. Obviously the title asks a question that is a no brainer.
It is a false dichotomy.
I can easily change the title if someone comes up with a better one.

I generally share the "religious liberal" view of what tendencies constitute "bad religion", although since I'm a mostly-orthodox Catholic I'd put the cutoff point for unacceptable levels of conservatism on moral issues a bit to the right of where a UU would probably put it. One thing I'd warn against, though, is that a commitment to value pluralism or cultural relativism does indicate some degree of "tolerance for intolerance" because tolerance itself is not a universal value. I recently watched a DS9 episode where Jake has to learn to swallow his tongue about Nog being a sexist prick because sexism is so ingrained in Ferengi culture that Nog isn't personally responsible for it, and even though the subplot is uncomfortable to watch I think that's actually a great example of the limits of where tolerance, pluralism, etc. can take us. If we're not willing to swallow that bitter pill, we have to just admit (and I believe we should admit this) that we believe in our own substantive values at least a little more than we believe in tolerance.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I pay my homage to screenwriting skills part 2.

Guys we're missing the most obvious explanation here:

SCENE: Christmas party in Sacramento for the state legislators, 2022. Governor Newsom has had a few too many Vodka Crans. He's talking to the GOP assembly leader Marie Waldron, mildly gloating about his re-election:

Waldron: "We thought we had you for a second there, when Rasmussen had you tied with Faulconer in September"

Newsom: "Oh, you really believed that? *hiccup* Come on now, this is California. There's no way you guys can win statewide anytime soon"

Waldron: "Really? There's no way?"

Newsom: "Nope, I could have stood in the middle of Hollywood Blvd and shot somebody, and I wouldn't have lost re-election"

*both laugh*

Waldron: "So you're telling me no Democrat could lose here, even if we made it so that Democratic precincts can only have one voting booth, while all the Republican precincts have a voting booth for every household?"

Newsom: "Yeah, I guess that's what I'm saying."

Waldron: *laughs* "Well if you wanna test that theory, we'll table the bill. Let's go convince your party leadership to go along with it, we'll get to see in 2024."

Newsom: "You're on"

*They walk to the table where the state Democratic leadership is seated*

Newsom: "So Marie and I made this bet..."

*The dems go along with it, somehow*


SCENE: The governor's mansion in Sacramento, election night 2024. Newsom watches the election night coverage. Biden/Harris are on track to get 270, assuming the entire west coast holds.

Wolf Blitzer: "It's 11 PM on the east coast, and we have polls closing in California, Oregon, and Washington. And we can project that Washington will give its 10 electoral votes to President Biden, Oregon we can project for Biden no surprise there, and California--wait that can't be right--nope, I'm hearing from the decision desk that currently the race in California is too close to call. Let's go to John King at the magic wall"

*A cold sweat rolls down Newsom's forehead*

John King: "That's right Wolf, what we're seeing right now in California is that it's too close to call. Take a look at San Mateo county here, in the Bay Area. One of the safest Democratic counties in the nation, as you can see here, Donald Trump is in the lead and turnout is extremely low."

*Newsom's shirt is now drenched in sweat*

Wolf Blitzer: "Fascinating John, and--*listens in to his earpiece*--we're hearing now about some serious voting irregularities in California, with Democratic precincts getting only one voting booth each, lines that lasted for hours. We're hearing that somewhere between 40-60% of the voters in these areas who lined up, left in frustration. So it seems like apart from the most safe Democratic counties, we're going to see a red California tonight."

*Newsom stares at the screen in disbelief. His ears are ringing, he doesn't hear the TV anymore. He looks at the screen, eyes wide open*

Wolf Blitzer: "And we can project now that the state of California will award its 55 electoral votes to former president Donald J. Trump."

Newsom: *whispering* F---

*Newsom grabs a few clothes, stuffs it in a tote bag, puts on a fake beard and sunglasses, and bolts out of his house*


SCENE: A bank in Sacramento

Bank Teller: "May I have your account number?"

Newsom: "*********"

Bank Teller: "Sure, let me just type it in--uhm, Gavin Christopher Newsom?"

Newsom: "Yeah, I have the same name as the governor. Complete coincidence"

Bank Teller: *nervously* "Haha I see, and what kind of transaction did you want to perform?"

Newsom: "Transfer all my money to a different account under BBVA Mexico, then delete my current account"

Bank Teller: *even more nervously* "Uhhh okay"


SCENE: A back alley in Tijuana

Shady man in a suit: "Okay Mr Newsom, here's your $500,000 in cash tranferred to me...I took 10% commission, of course"

Newsom: "Thanks Rodrigo, I'll take it from here"

Rodrigo: "So...what are you going to do now?"

Newsom: "There's a ranch for sale down in Chihuahua, I've made a deal to buy it"


Gavin Newsom now lives in a ranch under his fake identity, Johnny Hamburger. Nobody knows who he is, people just call him "el vaquero gringo".

Fin