It takes a village. Especially in a country full of toxic shitheads.
They had an ad for Bullock. I doubt it had any impact: we just don't have enough college educated women who weren't already going to vote for him.
Loosely related, a few years after I got to my current school, someone in alumni relations realized Steve S/chmidt was only a few credits shy of graduating with a major in my department. They arranged to get him over the hump with (I think) some online classes, and then he graduated the same day he gave the department convocation* address. It was actually very meaningful to me because an older (my age, so not much older) formerly homeless, returning student** I mentored had won the prize that entitled her to give the student address, and so I was able to calm both of their nerves before the ceremony by introducing them to each other as two returning/nontraditional graduates.
*Convocation is what we call the end of the year ceremony in which students wear regalia, have their names called, and walk across the stage. I've never been to the university-wide graduation held in the stadium that only includes the regalia. This means I've missed Biden (another department alum)***
as commencement speaker, which others tell me is not a huge loss.
**Then she moved to the Twin Cities for grad school, and I was able to connect her with Natilo and Frowner, IIRC.
***Christie and Axelrod are also alums. It's a small state.
Current Democratic Party consultants are motivated by greed and money but not by winning. They spend in ways that make them a lot of money whether or not it's effective. They take credit for the wins and blame other factors for the losses and the they do the same thing and make more money next cycle. See AOC's critique of the consultant ecosystem- it's not the ideology but the tactics that she thinks suck.
Democrats ought to hire marketers and ad makers who are motivated by greed, money, and winning,
They do. They just aren't that good at it. (Caveat: have not yet read the interview) I'm skeptical that the LP ads made much of any difference with Republicans. Their stuff was aimed squarely at Democrats (and motivated by money).
I thought the Biden ads were pretty good, but I don't know who was putting them up.
I think the Lincoln Project had a very specific strategy. I don't know whether it worked as well as Rick Wilson says. He's clearly spinning in that interview (but it's interesting).
Wasn't there a big deal made, during one of the Bush campaigns about Republicans switching from paying for media based on a percentage of the ad buys (as was traditional) to a fixed contract? I assumed Democrats would have followed at some point, but I haven't paid attention.
I think the idea that they don't care if they win is just wrong. They're trying hard to win. Everyone in the system is trying to win.
AOC is undoubtedly right that there should be better digital engagement in a lot of races. It would not have made any difference at all here -- we got swamped because a bunch of racist shitheads who've not voted previously were motivated to show Nancy Pelosi and AOC who is boss. They see video from Charlottesville and say 'at last, a movement worth joining!' There's no ad some media guru can run that will get these people to support our candidates. We're already getting the voters who care about policy that helps people: policies that help more people are good, but they're not going to add votes.
The demographics in other districts are undoubtedly different, and maybe there's room in some NC and TX House districts for Stacey Abrams-style mobilization to win those seats.
(I think there's room in some Montana legislative districts as well, and support efforts aimed at that.)
I thought the point of the Lincoln Project was to get money to attack Trump from people who aren't willing to donate to Democrats.
Democratic consultants and contractors may see themselves as doing their best, but they're chosen by relationships rather than track record, and unlike Republicans, we don't swap them out for fresh blood when they start losing.
To limit it to what I have direct personal experience with, in my area it's the norm that to be seen as a serious candidate for any local office, you have to engage one of a small handful of connected consultants, who charge large fees for a dubious level of service.
It's not just that the Democratic campaign consultants are dumb and uninspired, which they are. The overarching problem is that to the Democratic elite, the left portion of the party and, indeed, the electorate are perceived as more dangerous than the Republicans. They see the Republicans as having to say unserious things to placate their base, but they don't really mean it, and we more or less agree that the way things are is pretty fine. It's just politics, it's not serious.
Their electoral strategy is, therefore: do try to win, yes, but not by too much and certainly never at the risk of empowering those radicals. Controlling one veto point is good and desirable. Controlling them all is actually not very desirable; they might be held to account to produce outcomes if they did.
I don't think that's true anymore. There are certainly Democrats running in districts where they can't win with policy positions taken by the progressive wing of the party.
I don't know any political consultants, just regular consultants.
11 I think this is projection on steroids. It certainly doesn't line up with my experience.
10.1 also doesn't match my experience. OK, we're a backwater, but track record is the principal selling point, and people do get dropped.
There always seems to be a lot of blind men feeling an elephant to these discussions -- and yes, I just happen to have the tail, so I think it's a snake like creature.
Points like 10.1, or 11 for that matter, would be a lot more persuasive if actual examples were given. Rather than just statements of faith. We're talking about the acts of actual human beings.
Yes, it's a big party, and you can find someone doing every damn thing.
As everyone knows, there was an active debate all summer and fall within every Dem group, at every level, about whether we should be knocking doors. It works, and is important. But where one of the principal issues is whether the pandemic is real, and whether measures to fight it were justified, the position that we shouldn't do it because (a) safety and (b) the appearance of safety was pretty compelling. Different candidates here made different calls. There's no doubt at all that we paid a price for not knocking: whether it was a net price we'll probably never know.
It's facile beyond belief to claim that people who thought not knocking was the right thing to do are stupid, unimaginative, or don't care about winning.
16.2 does not refer to anyone here. It's thick on the ground, though.
The recent actions of Manchin and Feinstein come to mind as indirect evidence, as does the DNC's prohibitions on using consultants that ever work for progressive challengers, but I don't believe you're ever going to find a memo that outlines my belief in specifics because you don't need one. It's just the way the preferences and constraints under which the players are operating tend to work.
The accusation of projection may or may not have merit, but it's not clear who or what I'm projecting. My beliefs onto the situation? Yes, granted, just like everyone else.
We did lots of knocking. I assume the directive came from the Biden people. That's who was in charge from what I saw.
Projection as I understand it means accusing others of that of which you're guilty, which is the opposite of true. I do want my faction to win uncontested control and be held accountable for the success or failure of their agenda.
Feinstein needs to go because she's not capable of functioning. Manchin wins re-election in a state where Biden could only get 30% of the vote and things like his recent actions are why.
This is a tangent, but I offer it to put any inaccuracies or disagreements in this thread into perspective:
Corey Robin, someone who I admire a lot even though I disagree with him, said recently "Well, Trump lacks the sort of emphasis on the power of the will that fascists have." The point is taken: he is lazy, but his will manifests itself in this total denial of reality
This line of CR's has got to be close to the wrongest thing I have seen all year from anyone broadly in my political camp. Trump lacks "emphasis on the power of the will"? Donald Trump? (I agree about the total denial of reality, but also... it's everywhere.)
Manchin narrowly won in 2018 carried by a blue wave of Trump repudiation. Had he run this year he would have lost by 10+ points.
Yes. My point is that anybody better would have lost in 2018 and almost certainly won't win in 2024.
20 That was an overstatement, and I apologize. Here's what I meant: imo folks in the leftward 10% of the coalition spend a whole lot more time thinking about the actions and motivations of the people in the other 90% than vice versa. While there are isolated instances -- that DSCC policy, which should have been rejected, but the DSCC is independently run by members -- but ime most the Dem coalition spends a whole lot more time and mental energy thinking about how to beat the Rs than trying to keep the left down. I don't think there's any evidence at all for the proposition that these Dems are conspiring with the Rs to hold back the left, or that they are in any way afraid that the left will take over and make policy. They are afraid that the least reliable part of the coalition will them cost votes and help put the Rs in.
Feinstein and Manchin think their public policy positions are objectively correct and in the best interest of their constituents, and that their elections bear that out. Feinstein should have retired, and the whisper campaign about her dementia is ugly but probably necessary.
And that's great but that and coupla bucks will get you a cup of coffee, right? If he's unwilling to take actions to further the party's ostensible agenda, it's nice not to have a vote in McConnell's camp but that's about it.
Anyway, none of this is dissuading me from my analysis of the party elite's theory of the case. I should perhaps have made it explicit though - it's not an irrational theory! The fucked up political and economic system we have is hostile to liberal actions, to say nothing of leftist ones. They believe in harm reduction, is a nice way of putting it, while I believe our circumstances are so dire that we have an imperative to swing for the fences.
imo folks in the leftward 10% of the coalition spend a whole lot more time thinking about the actions and motivations of the people in the other 90% than vice versa
Activists within the party spend a lot of time thinking about what activists who disagree with them are doing in the party, because activists of one kind or another are driving the party in one direction or another. You, for example, spend a surprising amount of time complaining/worrying about people who advocate for police abolition and also about the center's and right's perceptions of AOC. (I don't think you're on the right of the party, which I why I'm using "activists" rather than "flanks" or "left" or "right.")
I'm not arguing that he's ideal. Just pointing out that the difference between him and any likely replacement includes many key parts of the Democratic Party agenda, including Obamacare and progressive tax rates.
I agree with you that the circumstances are dire. Truly. The thing is, taking out someone like Manchin moves the fences from 400 feet to 900. Or 4000. Even if you want to swing for the fences, you still have to keep people like Manchin in your coalition.
A home grown left movement that could elect senators in West Virginia would be great. I'm afraid, though, that in our current configuration that such a movement could only succeed (if at all) by embracing old ideas -- let's call them Wilsonian -- about racial justice. That's the conundrum: left policy isn't failing to be enacted because evil centrists are opposed to it, it's because our country is irredeemably racist.
27 is fair, for my time with you guys. I want more leftward policy. I will vote for AOC when she appears on my ballot. That doesn't mean that Republicans didn't know exactly what they were doing when they sent mailers against my state legislative candidates with her picture on them.
it's nice not to have a vote in McConnell's camp but that's about it
And that's great, but that and a coupla bucks...wait, fuck the coupla bucks, that alone's the difference between cabinet appointees and Supreme Court justices being confirmed or not, between stimulus packages and budgets being passed or not, between things of incalculable consequence happing or not. I loathe Manchin's policy profile, but the idea that him caucusing with the Democrats isn't important is beyond weird. Feinstein is an entirely different thing, because of VORS: hers is the worst in the Senate, while Manchin's is probably among the best.
They believe in harm reduction, is a nice way of putting it, while I believe our circumstances are so dire that we have an imperative to swing for the fences.
I think this is a fair way to put it. But I am in the middle between harm reduction and swinging for the fences. When we wander in the wilderness for four to forty years, quite a lot of people suffer.
"Happing," yes. Don't argue; just go with it.
The thing is, taking out someone like Manchin moves the fences from 400 feet to 900. Or 4000.
While I was writing 32, I erased a couple sentences that tortured the analogy further in this exact way!
I bet it's in the vicinity of those three. Vicinity of Rude Speculation.
From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player
That's a very neoliberal expression.
And to take the metaphor way out beyond where Heebie would have gone, even when you're looking to swing for the fences, you still orient yourself so that your hit won't be a foul, and you definitely don't swing at pitches you're not going to hit -- yes, a strike can be hit for a home run, but if you just swing at everything, you'll be out quickly.
'Shoulda swung at that one, I'll definitely swing at the next one' is exactly the thinking a pitcher wants to inculcate.
And with that, I'll go do something else for the day.
They are afraid that the least reliable part of the coalition will them cost votes and help put the Rs in.
If the left is an unreliable part of the coalition maybe its because the center can't stomach the idea of ever even throwing them a bone. When Deb Haaland for Interior Secretary is considered a bridge too far, as opposed to a strong an obvious choice, the message that gets sent is that the center really only wants votes from the left, but doesn't want them to actually participate in the governing process.
If he's unwilling to take actions to further the party's ostensible agenda,
He's willing to vote for a Democratic majority leader. In Congress, every other issue pales in comparison. To say that control of the Senate means next-to-nothing is ridiculous.
I believe our circumstances are so dire that we have an imperative to swing for the fences.
When Donald Trump or AOC wanted to swing for the fences, they didn't wait for their party establishments to back them. They went to the voters. If you think Joe Manchin doesn't represent the will of the voters in West Virginia, then you might be right, but only because those voters want something significantly worse.
The center of the party is greatly to the left of where it was a few years ago.
31: What does VORS stand for?
Feinstein sucks especially hard, because California had Boxer and even Harris.
When I was a kid though, Csligornia had Pete Wilson and always voted for Republican presidential candidates.
Ah, progressive taxation and Supreme Court justices, two areas in which liberal centrism is definitely successfully playing defense.
But less pithily, I think part of the dispute is that some of y'all think that Manchinism is an electoral strategy that continues to be viable, while I think McConnell and Trump have completed the project of Gingrich to nationalize all elections.
When we wander in the wilderness for four to forty years, quite a lot of people suffer.
As I said to Moses and Bruce Springsteen, "I wish I could, but I don't believe in the Promised Land."
The observation about the AOC mailers is extremely telling. AOC has next to no influence within the Democratic party legislative bodies (although she has considerable influence within the leftist faction and the young Democrats - influence the party elite will disregard or abuse to its institutional peril), but she's the evil face of the party that all members have to defend.
Did I miss the tidal wave of mailers making the Republicans own the words of their Nazi enthusiasts?
Without the votes of a small percentage of people who think AOC is evil, Biden would have lost Pennsylvania.
It occurs to me that Democrats ought to hire marketers and ad makers who are motivated by greed, money, and winning, and not hire marketers based on how fervently they believe the party message they're selling
I think Bill Clinton took this cynical approach to the limit (and beyond?) when he hired Dick Morris. I guess that worked for a while.
When I was a kid though, Csligornia had Pete Wilson and always voted for Republican presidential candidates.
Not at the same time - Wilson was elected in 1990, and the last year California went for a Republican presidential candidate was 1998.
54: Elections are very much state-level things. States run them, the EC goes by state, there are other state-level races on the ballot at the same time.
You're talking mechanics; I'm talking messaging.
Republicans running against AOC in all the races is clear evidence of nationalized politics.
Right, but that Biden won Pennsylvania but Democrats running in other state-wide races at the same time lost is pretty clear evidence they aren't successful in key populations. People who hate AOC but hate Trump worse were essential.
It's also importantly a state function because the state sets the rules. A few dozen PA state legislators have more influence on who will be the next president than all the voters in several whole other states. Finding ways to help to defeat a few of them would help a great deal. At least, that's what my goal for 2021 and 2022 is.
I mean, I'm going to send money. I don't really want to spend much time with someone who would be a swing voter there.
I suppose I should see if they are looking for GOTV people in closer districts.
57: I was a kid in 80, 84, 88 and I was still a kid (I.e. under the age of 18) in 1990.
Did I miss the tidal wave of mailers making the Republicans own the words of their Nazi enthusiasts?
I'll refer you to David Roberts
All day today I have been having the vertiginously weird experience of trying to convince Democrats that the fact that the RW has a giant, coordinated messaging machine & they don't *matters*. To no effect! I can't even get people to acknowledge & discuss it.
...
You win messaging battles by developing the capacity to ensure that your message is repeated again & again, in multiple media, in such a way that it *reaches your target audience*. How do you develop that capacity? Money & power.
Also, because it took me too long to find that tweet, this is also a good thread.
There are *millions* of people like this in America, who just want all the political fighting & squabbling to stop so we can move on and [DO THINGS DEMOCRATS ARE ADVOCATING FOR AND REPUBLICANS ARE FIGHTING].
I think all the time about this great interview with singer/songwriter @TheBrandyClark on @SwitchedOnPop. Clark is a close, insightful observer of human foibles -- her songs are soaked in empathy & compassion. She's just a good person. But on politics ... she doesn't want to take a side. She doesn't want to get involved in the constant furious partisan warfare. She finds it all exhausting & degrading. She shares this feeling with millions of other Americans! But THEN, when probed a little closer, she starts to reveal ... her core values. She believes black people should be treated equally, not wantonly killed by police. She believes we should attend to society's weakest & most vulnerable. She views these values as apolitical, as *deeper* than politics, something everyone should agree on. And yes, in a sane world, we *would* all agree on those principles, they *would* be deeper than politics. They would be fixed & foundational, beyond the reach of partisanship. .... But in this world? ONE PARTY AGREES AND THE OTHER DOESN'T.The values Clark believes should transcend partisanship ... don't. In their words & actions, Republicans make clear that they disagree. ... This is the situation average Americans don't understand: basic values they take as beyond politics have become political.
11 is paranoid. The left is a rounding error in American politics -- it's people who make up 95% of like 20 Congressional districts, and imagine they make up a vast multitude. In reality, the American electorate consists of shitheads, morons, and people who only want change in so far in that it doesn't change the status quo in any way. I feel like every election other than 2008, the electorate tries to send the message that they don't want what liberals want, and every election liberals spend the entire aftermath of the election working very hard to not get the message.
You win messaging battles by developing the capacity to ensure that your message is repeated again & again, in multiple media, in such a way that it *reaches your target audience*.
One thing that drove me nuts about the Lincoln Project is that all that effort went into building Lincoln Project messaging capacity instead of Democratic Party messaging capacity.
Flag on the word 'liberal' -- I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, but I think you're using 'liberal' to describe people who would self-describe as left, would call Diane Feinstein a liberal, and would be horrified by the conflation.
Is there any information about where Lincoln Project donations came from? I feel very differently if it was money that would otherwise have gone to the Democratic Party than if they were tapping centrist Republican donors for their funding.
One thing that drove me nuts about the Lincoln Project is that all that effort went into building Lincoln Project messaging capacity instead of Democratic Party messaging capacity.
During the campaign I didn't donate to them and, at least once, discouraged somebody else from donating to them for precisely that reason. The way the election turned out I think it's likely (but not certain) that they were helpful, and the race was close enough that their contribution was worth the money.
I don't think Democrats should be funding a Lincoln Project institution, but I also don't know that it's worth feeling like they drive you nuts.
71 I think it was a mix.
67 That is frustrating, but doesn't describe where we are out in the sticks. We know all about this, which is why Bullock went to the mat (and the US Sup Ct) on dark money regulation, distinguishing Citizens United, and all the rest of that.
What Wilson describes in the OP is exactly this sort of messaging: getting Republican leaning college educated suburban white women to see who they'd have to get into a fox-hole with if they wanted to get back to Republican voting. They think their polling shows the sort of limited success they were playing for. It's a marginal play, and only worked (if it did) with massive mobilization of people of color. That is, the wine moms of suburban Phoenix couldn't have gotten it done without turnout from the Navajo Nation.
44 I get this. On the other hand, there's no Queen (or King) of the Left with whom the centrists can make a quid pro quo deal. Sen. Sanders did a great job delivering his following in 2016 and 2020 -- better than Clinton did delivering hers in 2008 -- but in 2016 it just wasn't quite enough, as just barely too many people couldn't stomach Clinton went Stein against the advice of the folks leading their movement. This same thing impacts unions: if they could deliver, they'd probably do better at getting their agendas advanced. This is not because the leaders aren't serious and dedicated. It's because every follower wants to make his own deal about what's important. (We have lots of union members here who voted for the people who will pass Right to Work legislation in the upcoming legislature, because they were afraid the Democrats were going to take their guns away. Union leaders fought in vain against that kind of thing, but the cultural tide was too strong. And it doesn't matter how many times a Dem candidate says they're not going to take anyone's guns away.)
Because even if Steve doesn't want to take your guns away, Nancy Pelosi does, and Steve is whipped enough to let her do it.
It occurs to me that the person I discouraged from supporting the LP gave money to Jaime Harrison, who is clearly a, "build the Democratic party" guy, and who really impressed me. But . . I don't know how much good that money did.
On the other hand, there's no Queen (or King) of the Left with whom the centrists can make a quid pro quo deal.
Sure there is, but the only centrists who actually want to work with AOC are the Lincoln Project people, who at least know how to recognize talent.
She's not Queen of the Left, though. I was just reading a Twitter thread this morning dragging her for being too willing to work with Pelosi. The more she makes deals, the more purists on the left will think of her as just another sellout. She's fantastic, but she can't deliver support from the leftmost part of the electorate on anything they weren't already lined up behind.
I really don't think 76 is right. AOC is a great talent. She's engaged with the leadership and they'll make a deal. Because it's not going to include Pelosi's head on a pike, or forcing marginal members of the caucus into pointless but tough (for them) votes, some of her following is going to be dissatisfied. Which is ok, it's obviously their call.
As you all have heard by now, I just don't think divisive threats and hyperbole strengthens Pelosi's hand against McConnell, or AOC's hand against Pelosi and Hoyer. I don't think our coalition is that motivated by fear; especially not by fear that isn't realistic. I recognize that lots of people disagree with this.
Shit, I should've refreshed. OK, back to oblivion.
And Cuomo accused of long-term sexual harassment.
Not to snipe, but Mark Penn, may schistosoma and candiru compete for his fluids until the last of his days, was a dem adviser interested in greed and winning.
All the decades are blurring together for me.
I suppose I should have read some of the links, but they looked really long and it's a Sunday.
What would a non-terrible governor of New York look like? (I guess Mario wasn't terrible.)
the message that gets sent is that the center really only wants votes from the left, but doesn't want them to actually participate in the governing process.
The Left is also chained to the Democrat [sic] Plantation. The overseers keep whipping for "Majority Leader", "passing legislation", "Judicial nominees". All mechanical crap that doesn't inspire nearly as much as a good bloody revolutionary purge. Where's the LEFT MESSAGE in something procedural like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009? So, vote Republican. As 45 said to Black Democrats, what've you got to lose?
Welp, Dolly Parton went and saved a child from being run over by an oncoming car, because I guess that's what she does.
What Wilson describes in the OP is exactly this sort of messaging: getting Republican leaning college educated suburban white women to see who they'd have to get into a fox-hole with if they wanted to get back to Republican voting. They think their polling shows the sort of limited success they were playing for. It's a marginal play, and only worked (if it did) with massive mobilization of people of color. That is, the wine moms of suburban Phoenix couldn't have gotten it done without turnout from the Navajo Nation.
This is just a statement that the Democratic party is a coalition, and you need the whole of the coalition to outnumber the other lot. There is no amount of Navajo turnout that will win you a US presidential election without the rest of the coalition, either.
(The analogous pathology in Europe is the idea of just getting rid of the rest of the party and being a 10% party with just your mates and hoping to pull a coalition government to the left; the problem is that someone has to do the heavy lift and get to 40% for the 5-10% to have any value.)
(The analogous pathology in Europe is the idea of just getting rid of the rest of the party and being a 10% party with just your mates and hoping to pull a coalition government to the left; the problem is that someone has to do the heavy lift and get to 40% for the 5-10% to have any value.)
Yeah, as gensym points out in 60, The Left is interested in is messaging, and everybody understands the underlying message: Contempt for American democracy.
Which, of course, is entirely fair. The median American is an asshole, and in the US, winning the median voter isn't enough in national elections or most state elections anyway. So achieving decency -- getting something like Obamacare or a massive stimulus program, for instance -- is always an uphill battle, and the results are always inadequate compared to what would happen if the Democrats had their way unimpeded.
In the absence of a plan for winning, the Left understands that it can still engage in "messaging." The problem with AOC or Bernie or whoever is that, in the end, they are interested in winning. Bernie, sadly, has been able to retain his Leftist cred by not appealing even to the median national Democrat. We'll see what happens to AOC.
Regarding the Lincoln Project, one of their interesting accomplishments is that their work really speaks to me. This, of course, makes me suspicious of the overall value of their project.
71: Reading the right-wing take on the Lincoln Project leads to claims that almost 100% of its funding is Democrat-run PACs. Further, the people running the Lincoln Project are getting huge salaries and not spending much on actual voter persuasion. No idea if these claims are true but I suspect a lot of Republicans see them.
Contempt for American democracy
Isn't that a little harsh?
IME, there is a Left plan for winning, which involves mobilizing the large number of non-voters who, it is thought, would register and vote if a truly leftist platform was presented to them. The median voter may be an asshole, but the median citizen, well that's something else entirely.
I always thought this theory undersupported in places like Montana, but what makes our 2020 election so utterly demoralizing is that a huge number of non-voters became voters this time -- and it turns out that they had been waiting for the Spirit of Charlottesville to bring them out. The median voter in 2020 was way way worse than the median voter of 2016. I haven't looked closely at the House races lost in other states, but it wouldn't surprise me if the same thing happened there.
Left people I know IRL are mostly still in denial about this. And it's probably true that there are some legislative districts where greater mobilization would lead to Democratic gains. At a certain point, though, the idea that Sanders would have won, and his coattails would have won statewide races in Montana that the Rs won by double digits becomes untenable.
Yes, lots of this is seeing how much we can hold the line while hoping generational replacement can improve the playing field.
Isn't that a little harsh?
Harsh to the Left, or harsh to the US? Sure, I'm being a bit, um, provocative, but the Leftist view is rooted in a reality that I accept: American democracy is not designed to produce decent outcomes.
The problem I have with Leftist messaging is that it takes that reality and pretends that this is the fault of the leadership -- that the Democratic Party leadership dictates the behavior of voters. The Republican Party always had a much more homogenous following, and a tighter grip on their process. The party leadership didn't like Trump, but their voters did. That's what mattered.
There is a Leftist mythology about Trump: People voted for him because they were disgusted by Obama's willingness to kowtow to unearned wealth, and voters regarded Trump as someone who would look out for the economic interests of the working man. That just isn't what happened, not even at the margins.
Harsh to the Left.
I guess we're at glass half empty glass half full here. The way that the Dem leadership fails, in my version, is by preventing the left platform, with the right charismatic leftist leader, which/who would rally the reserve army of disaffected leftists and sweep all before it.
Yeah, as gensym points out in 60, The Left is interested in is messaging, and everybody understands the underlying message: Contempt for American democracy.
I think this is mostly Twitter edgelords larping as leftist activists. Some people IRL act like this too but they're about as unimportant.
97: The only thing lacking is the right charismatic leftist leader. If I'm spared, I look forward to someday voting for AOC for president, but I nonetheless have a hard time seeing a scenario -- even four or five elections from now -- where she represents the median Democratic voter. But then again, it took me a long time to understand that Obama could win a national election (or Trump!), so my crystal ball is cloudy.
Harsh to the Left.
I nonetheless stand by it. Leftists are serious when they talk about what they are going to do to win over voters -- not when they talk about what the DNC needs to do for them.
AOC is a serious-minded leftist. So is Bernie. Elizabeth Warren is a capitalist sell-out, so she may not qualify. Plausibly tell me how you're going to get someone better than Manchin in West Virginia, and you qualify. Tell me that Democratic control of the Senate is unimportant, and you're not a serious person, specifically because your contempt for American democracy leads you to false conclusions about it.
Democrats and Republicans chase voters in a system that is tilted toward Republicans, and some Democrats lean further then I'd like toward the Right in order to win election. But I gotta say -- speaking solely for myself -- I'm a huge fan of the goofs in Georgia who are telling Republicans not to vote. I am totally onboard with their program, and wish to subscribe to their newsletter. They are my fellow travellers. Their contempt for democracy places them on my side. The Leftists saying the same thing about Democrats are not on my side.
Assuming that 99 is aimed in my direction, let me be clear that I don't believe that Democratic control of the Senate is unimportant, though it is a thing I am willing to risk in service of Democratic control of an effective Senate, as it were. Electoral success can follow legislative success, or, at least, that's a way that used to be true.
I strongly dispute that leftists who critique the American national political system are therefore contemptuous of "American democracy". They're contemptuous of, very specifically, the anti-democratic features of the American national political system.
The Democratic establishment is powerful and important, and the blacklist against liberal consultants was really contemptible and dumb and wrong. The institutional imperative behind the consultant blacklisting is easy to understand -- incumbents are necessarily going to be more influential than their challengers in party organizations -- but the necessary response has to go beyond complaining about the DCCC, or pretending that the DCCC would rather lose to Republicans than Leftists.
What serious-minded leftists do is they create alternatives.
The Republican establishment, of course, does the same thing. That doesn't keep the party from being responsive to their insurgents, and the reason for that seems obvious. Their insurgents are genuinely representative of their constituency. That's what the Left needs to achieve.
My impression that what happened in the Rio Grande Valley is in line with 94 -- turnout was way up, but it turns out that the people who turned out for the first time were shitheads.
Electoral success can follow legislative success, or, at least, that's a way that used to be true.
I guess I just don't see how this can work at all. What legislative success can precede electoral success?
Are you saying that if the Dem candidates win the Georgia runoffs, and broadly beneficial measures get passed, then West Virginia voters will flock, in a primary, to a more leftward challenger to Sen Manchin? Who will then win statewide? Isn't this putting electoral success first? Since whatever the legislation is, Manchin will have supported it, doesn't its popularity float his boat?
I mean, I guess that a record of legislative accomplishment ought to be helpful in elections, although Gov. Bullock's record wasn't very important given he probable slavish adherence to whatever Pelosi and AOC would want him to do.
There's a faction of the left that views 'legislative success' as having failing votes on, say, M4A, which they hope will lead to primary challenges to those who vote against. I'm sure there are districts where this would work. There are districts where it won't work. Are the latter enough to lose the House to Republicans?
I'm claiming that if the Democrats end up with a 50-vote split Senate, and if Manchin and the centrists were to agree to abolish the filibuster, then the Democrats would have a fighting chance to establish a legislative record (and, then, run against the reactionary judiciary, but that's a battle for another election cycle, more's the pity). In this implausible scenario, Manchin would have a case based on legislative success to make to the voters - primary and general - in 2024. As it is, well, predictions are hard, especially about the future, but it's hard not to see him losing by 5+.
Any imaginable scenario where Joe Manchin is senator is superior to any imaginable scenario where he is not. It's a sorry state of affairs, to be sure, and as an American and a Democrat, I understand that I am complicit in it. If I wanted to deny my responsibility -- and the role of people like me -- I would say that it is the fault of the US Left, which has persistently failed to cough up a plausible alternative. I won't do that, because it would be silly. I am part of a political coalition that occasionally produces someone like Joe Manchin. This is the best offer that American democracy is willing to make to people like me, so I'll take it.
They're contemptuous of, very specifically, the anti-democratic features of the American national political system.
And yet, efforts to be responsive to the will of the majority are rebuked as "Manchinism."
I mean, yes, I understand the narrative: Bernie would, on net, attract more supporters than Biden were it not for nefarious institutional Democratic forces that would just as soon see Republicans in charge. This seems extraordinarily unlikely to me. Bernie wasn't even able to attract a majority of the leftish part of the electorate, and a lot of Bernie supporters were openly opposed to majority rule in the Democratic primaries, arguing that in a fair election, the center-left vote would have been split among several candidates to enable Bernie to win without a majority.
I know this is a long time ago, but I think of the Democratic Leadership Council, Paul Tsongas, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore, for example, as having explicitly run against the left, unions, identity politics, etc. And I think that history has something to do with where we are.
PF, barriers to voting are real; I don't know about recent changes, but NY for example has a notoriously unforgiving system. Lots of places are less open to poor, the elderly, and people of color.
In early 2017 when we had a bunch of people who'd gotten Our Revolution emails suggesting they come to our county central committee meeting, get appointed as members, and push through a series of voting reforms (same day registration, open primaries chief among them). We already have those -- which are a matter of state law, not party policy anyway -- and you can only get appointed to a CC (other than in the June primary in an even numbered year) if the seat where you live is vacant. And the new folks who showed up were not from the rural precincts we have trouble getting people for. Pretty much everyone left empty handed, which was the fault of the Party Establishment, of course, and not of Our Revolution for sending a one-size-fits-all email to its national list.
107 Right, but they didn't do that because they were afraid the Left would win the Presidency: not a single one of them was. They did that as a way to beat the Republicans. Which only worked because GHWB had to deal with Buchanan at his convention and then Perot in the general.
Well, almost 40 states' electors have voted and no faithless electors so far. The majority of FEs in 2016 came from Washington state, which has passed a law against the practice since.
The electoral college tally is top-of-the-front-page news in the New York Times and Washington Post. We live in amazing times.
106 is not a summarization of my position with which I'd agree, and I think my attempts to clarify are either poorly worded or are falling on deaf ears, so I'll just thank you for a spirited discussion.
Is there anything stopping the Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin electors from asking the Texas state legislature to suck a bag of dicks?
I wonder if the betting sites have paid off the Biden backers yet?
I think no. PredictIt is at 8 for Trump. It went down from about 14 when the Supremes did not take up the Texas crap. (Apparently you cannot come in and bet on Biden so it is probably artificial but I'm not really sure how it works or what it is showing.)
They are still taking money for Trump?
And that's the whole count but Hawaii, apparently with zero faithless electors this time, so assuming Hawaii wrangled its electors like the others did, Biden will get 306 electoral votes without it being eroded to 304 like Trump's were in 2016.
Apparently, something called Betfair is now paying people who bet for Biden. Personally, I think "Betfaire" is a classier name.
87: A non-terrible governor of New York would look a lot like Miranda on Sex and the City.
CharleyCarp, thank you for your contributions throughout the seasons. Between you and Mike McFaul on Twitter, I feel unusually informed about things Montanan, which are similar to, but also interestingly different from, the southern states I lived in when I was younger.
The parallel timeline where unionism wasn't allowed to wither on the vine is one in which the idea of a WV Senator to the left of Joe Manchin isn't so outlandish.
118: PredictIt has finally started paying out some bets, but it's pretty erratic and slow-going. In the last twelve hours "Trump wins any state he lost in 2016?" and "Will Trump win PA, AZ, or GA?" have cleared, but not "2020 presidential election winner?", "SC Dem Primary winner elected president?" and "Will Trump win MI, WI, or NV?" If that seems like a rather redundant set of bets, I put money in whichever one Trumpists happened to be pumping the most at the time. This was after the weekend Trump had clearly lost, and most of these were still trading at 90 to 93 cents.
121 Just read a twitter thread of Trump bettors talking of suing as they close out the bets because they think the outcome of the election is still uncertain. Here: https://twitter.com/BeijingPalmer/status/1338672568216248323
Ned culture is going to be a problem.
A couple of good ones here: https://twitter.com/flglmn/status/1338847766072668164
I saw a GoFundMe from someone claiming to have lost his entire college tuition betting on Trump in BetFair. Almost certainly a scam, and one of the best-targeted ones ever.
I've never participated in those markets, but the critique I have read is that there are low limits to the amount of money you can invest, so people can bet their preferences without a proper counter-weight from realists. Thus, no efficient market.
111: The Boston Globe (at least the online edition) doesn't have anything about the EC vote on the front page. Weird.
It has migrated down the web page at the NYT, but in real-time yesterday, they had an election map and everything. (California was apparently the last to vote.)
But I'm like you: I agree with the news judgment of the NYT and WaPo -- this was a front-page event in our fucked-up country.
126: The British bookies have apparently larger, but still limited, stakes available.
125: Nobody should donate to his GoFundMe because if he goes to college he's just going to turn into another one of those stinkin' lieberals. Sounds like he got a real education from the school of hard knocks.
126: The limit on PredictIt is $800, which was forced on them by whoever the appropriate regulator is so that they wouldn't have to be licensed as a casino (if that's even something the feds allow at all). Another big issue is that their fee structure prevents true arbitrage: they get a fixed percent F (I think 10%) of your profits on a profitable trade or when the market clears, so if you bought at P you don't get 1 when the market clears, you get 1 - F(1-P) = 1 - F + FP. This is enough to keep many markets, especially multi-choice markets, irrational. Also, the risk calculations on multi-choice markets are really unintuitive: you can sell profitable shares and lose money because of how it affects your risk. (I think the reason they did this instead of treating multi-choice markets as a collection of binary choices is because a "No" share is inherently more valuable than a "Yes" share, but I've never done the work to really grok it.)
It's just so frustrating that Manchin wins, and so many people who seem to me to be basically in the same lane as locally popular moderates with a populist streak but who are also much better like Doug Jones, Bullock, McCaskill, Donnelly, etc. have lost. Tester still stands as a good moderate. It just seems like the difference between Manchin and the ones who lost is mostly that Manchin is more outspoken about supporting sexual harrassers, which is just really depressing.
Manchin is more outspoken about supporting sexual harrassers
The Dems don't need to win the sexual harasser vote, but can they write that demographic off completely? Maybe Nate Silver has written about that.
That's more New York than West Virginia.
131 Tester is going to have a hell of a race on his hands in 2024, depending on what has happened with Trumpism.
OT: Someone texted me and called me from the same number asking me if I wanted to sell my house for cash. Is there a place to put that number so that it gets more spam calls without at the same time getting a computer virus? I'm assuming it's a real number since calling back is kind of key to his pitch working.
This one made me laugh out loud: https://twitter.com/MuckleBow/status/1338859339465912321/photo/1
It's especially strange to realize that most of the people who lost voting on Trump in Betfair are mostly not Americans, since our laws and financial institutions block this kind of betting, but residents of Europe, meaning people who have much better access to real news.
There's always the going the Full Torquemada if you want to find evidence of voter fraud.