American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Before people freak out, this is more of a comment on strategy than it is on Biden. I really do not understand why Democrats continue to chase the mythical "moderate Republican" vote they seem to think exists and is just their for the taking. The strategy has been producing diminishing returns for almost two decades now.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1298267744865902601

Of course this does not take into account that Trump has driven all but his ardent supporters out of the party, in fact I am astounded any one that identifies as a Republican would vote for anyone but Trump, it is, right now, akin to polling the Manson family to see how many of them like the Polanski's

[Fighting Banana Slug]

It may also be that only 5% say they are voting for Biden, but the final number that actually vote for him is greater. Similar to 2016 when many were quietly voting for Trump, but not admitting it.

Also, wouldn't it be better for Biden to campaign in an effort to increase that number?

[troutman]

If Bitecofer is right, chasing swing voters and independents is a waste of time. The only thing that matters is turning out your base.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...-theory-108944

The “Chuck Todd theory of American politics”: “The idea that there is this informed, engaged American population that is watching these political events and watching their elected leaders and assessing their behavior and making a judgment.”

“And it is just not true.”

“In the polarized era, the outcome isn’t really about the candidates. What matters is what percentage of the electorate is Republican and Republican leaners, and what percentage is Democratic and Democratic leaners, and how they get activated,” she said.

In 2012, Bitecofer points out, Obama actually lost independents while winning the election, and in Ohio, he lost them by 10 points, but still carried the crucial swing state. There are just simply more Democrats in much of the country, and if they are activated by a belief that, say, the Republican presidential nominee is a heartless plutocrat who thinks 47 percent of the population can be written off as grifters and that corporations are people, and the Democrat gets just a handful of those true independents, then it becomes impossible for Republicans to win.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

It may also be that only 5% say they are voting for Biden, but the final number that actually vote for him is greater. Similar to 2016 when many were quietly voting for Trump, but not admitting it.

Wouldn't that suggest the number for Biden might actually be lower?

Also, wouldn't it be better for Biden to campaign in an effort to increase that number?

No, because despite all of their years of campaigning to win over moderate Republicans, that number never increases. This is the point. It's a waste of time and effort that also has the blowback effect of reducing the enthusiasm levels from segments within their own party.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by troutman

If Bitecofer is right, chasing swing voters and independents is a waste of time. The only thing that matters is turning out your base.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...-theory-108944

The parts you quoted do note indicate a very well thought through position.

The “Chuck Todd theory of American politics”: “The idea that there is this informed, engaged American population that is watching these political events and watching their elected leaders and assessing their behavior and making a judgment.”

“And it is just not true.”

Okay, I'm with you, I think this is a reality that is not talked about enough... let's see what's next.

There are just simply more Democrats in much of the country, and if they are activated by a belief that, say, the Republican presidential nominee is a heartless plutocrat who thinks 47 percent of the population can be written off as grifters and that corporations are people, and the Democrat gets just a handful of those true independents, then it becomes impossible for Republicans to win.

You've... you've just explained Obama's victory in Ohio in 2012 by returning to the very same "Chuck Todd" theory you said you didn't believe in! The Republican base in Ohio simply did not have any reason to believe that Romney would do anything for them in their day to day lives. Meanwhile, Obama was popular - from September onwards in 2012, his approval rating never dropped below 48 according to gallup, was generally in the low 50s and peaked at 57.

No, Obama did not win Ohio because of some gotcha comment Romney made in a blurry video that dominated CNN for a few days. Attributing the victory to that sort of event is missing the point entirely, yet again.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You've... you've just explained Obama's victory in Ohio in 2012 by returning to the very same "Chuck Todd" theory you said you didn't believe in! The Republican base in Ohio simply did not have any reason to believe that Romney would do anything for them in their day to day lives. Meanwhile, Obama was popular - from September onwards in 2012, his approval rating never dropped below 48 according to gallup, was generally in the low 50s and peaked at 57.

No, Obama did not win Ohio because of some gotcha comment Romney made in a blurry video that dominated CNN for a few days. Attributing the victory to that sort of event is missing the point entirely, yet again.

Couldn't it be both? The video (not on its own obviously) provided enough evidence to Ohio Republicans that Romney wouldn't do anything for them in their day to day lives, so they just stayed home?

This is honestly my fear with Biden. Yes, he's popular among the "I would have voted Obama for a third time if I could have" liberals, but the Democrats have done nothing to make the case to the average voter that life under a Biden presidency will be dramatically better for them than it would be under a Trump administration.

The "decency" argument only gets you so far, IMO, and most voters don't give a crap about Trump's various scandals because they're too in the weeds (similar to Trudeau's scandals here).

[PsYcNeT]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1297763870627336193

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Couldn't it be both? The video (not on its own obviously) provided enough evidence to Ohio Republicans that Romney wouldn't do anything for them in their day to day lives, so they just stayed home?

No, this is missing the whole problem with what's being described as the Chuck Todd theory: it's premised on the assumption that the sort of thing that drives ratings on CNN - like juicy video footage of a candidate saying something controversial - also drives votes.

I agree with the rest of your post, although I think Biden just naturally resonates with the average voter more than Hillary did - he simply comes across as far more genuine - and that might be enough on its own. But they shouldn't count on it. Polling is okay, but it's getting tight in Minnesota which makes me worry about the Michigan and Wisconsin numbers. I think Pennsylvania's probably safe.

[Senator Clay Davis]

^^Biden not having a vagina and not being the most hated politician (American period?) of the last 30 years is a pretty big difference to be fair.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

^^Biden not having a vagina and not being the most hated politician (American period?) of the last 30 years is a pretty big difference to be fair.

How was Hillary so hated when more people voted for her than Trump? I feel like everyone forgot she won the popular vote...Trump and Fox have worked really hard to convince us she was vile, but she really wasn't.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Sliver

How was Hillary so hated when more people voted for her than Trump? I feel like everyone forgot she won the popular vote...Trump and Fox have worked really hard to convince us she was vile, but she really wasn't.

That's exactly it though, 30 years of the GOP machine making her out to be the devil made her extremely hated by people. I have no doubt whatsoever if Biden was running in 2016 he would have won. If someone hated Hillary, odds are they didn't just hate her a little, they thought she was Satan.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Before people freak out, this is more of a comment on strategy than it is on Biden. I really do not understand why Democrats continue to chase the mythical "moderate Republican" vote they seem to think exists and is just there for the taking. The strategy has been producing diminishing returns for almost two decades now.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1298267744865902601

Guess it depends on what the numbers are that identify as democrats vs. republicans. If they've converted a bunch of fence sitters to the democrat side, then wouldn't it not matter that a lower percentage of a smaller base would vote democrat?

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

How was Hillary so hated when more people voted for her than Trump? I feel like everyone forgot she won the popular vote...Trump and Fox have worked really hard to convince us she was vile, but she really wasn't.

538 does a better job explaining but basically their unfavourable polling was similar and due to sexism, likely, ppl broke for trump who hated both

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Before people freak out, this is more of a comment on strategy than it is on Biden. I really do not understand why Democrats continue to chase the mythical "moderate Republican" vote they seem to think exists and is just their for the taking. The strategy has been producing diminishing returns for almost two decades now.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1298267744865902601

Just to explain something that I think is lost in the discussion. The problem with the assumptions being made is that the party lines have remained stagnant. They haven't. I believe most are going off the 2004 standard that had the Republican Party holding close to a 42% chunk of registered voters. That segment does not exist anymore. The Republican Party has experienced a significant period of shrinkage since then.

From 2016-2017 there was a 5% change in Republican voter identification, dropping from 42% to 37%, while the Democrat identification held firm at 44%, providing a seven point advantage. Gallup says that gap has continued to widen in 2020 and is now an 11 point gap.

While Trump has ridiculous support from his identified base, that base has shrunk because of people no longer identifying with the party. So even though he went from having 93% support to 95% support of Republicans, the fact that the Republican slice has shrunk 7-11% says he's lost voters not gained any. If you do the math, the GOP has lost ground in the base, let alone the messaging that impacts voter support. That 10 point gap makes sense based on the larger data supporting the shifting party identification in the US.

If you really want to turn that tweet on its head, you can easily say that Trump has a problem with Democrats. He only has 3% support from Democrats.

[Fuzz]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/p...filiation.aspx






I quickly graphed the data from the above link. Note that present is on the left, because I'm lazy. You can see the base has declined since 2004 for both parties, though the Republican's is smaller.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by New Era

Just to explain something that I think is lost in the discussion. The problem with the assumptions being made is that the party lines have remained stagnant. They haven't. I believe most are going off the 2004 standard that had the Republican Party holding close to a 42% chunk of registered voters. That segment does not exist anymore. The Republican Party has experienced a significant period of shrinkage since then.

From 2016-2017 there was a 5% change in Republican voter identification, dropping from 42% to 37%, while the Democrat identification held firm at 44%, providing a seven point advantage. Gallup says that gap has continued to widen in 2020 and is now an 11 point gap.

While Trump has ridiculous support from his identified base, that base has shrunk because of people no longer identifying with the party. So even though he went from having 93% support to 95% support of Republicans, the fact that the Republican slice has shrunk 7-11% says he's lost voters not gained any. If you do the math, the GOP has lost ground in the base, let alone the messaging that impacts voter support. That 10 point gap makes sense based on the larger data supporting the shifting party identification in the US.

If you really want to turn that tweet on its head, you can easily say that Trump has a problem with Democrats. He only has 3% support from Democrats.

Amazingly the GOP would be losing even more ground if it weren't for the Trump's base. That party is dead.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Sliver

How was Hillary so hated when more people voted for her than Trump? I feel like everyone forgot she won the popular vote...Trump and Fox have worked really hard to convince us she was vile, but she really wasn't.

If she's not vile, how do you explain this? Checkmate.

Spoiler!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Amazingly the GOP would be losing even more ground if it weren't for the Trump's base. That party is dead.

It ain't dead, but it is dying. It is popular with people over the age of 55. It is poison to those under the age of 40. The 40-55 year old demographic is segmented along the lines of education and sex. The top demographic for the GOP is over 65. The party is slowly dying because their base is slowly dying from old age.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Should also point out that Biden leads Trump with female voters by 25-28 points. WaPo/ABC Biden 60-35, Quinnipiac 59-31.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

His point is perfectly fine - he is saying that when you erode faith in our law enforcement institutions, social unrest and vigilante-ism is not far behind.

He doesn't seem happy about it.

Both sides, many sides.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/27/media...sts/index.html

The White House said in a story published Thursday that it was compiling a "very large" dossier on a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter and others who it said are a "disgrace to journalism and the American people."

In a statement, White House spokesperson Judd Deere accused The Washington Post of "blatantly interfering with the business relationships of the Trump Organization" and demanded "it must stop."
"Please be advised that we are building up a very large 'dossier' on the many false David Fahrenthold and others stories as they are a disgrace to journalism and the American people," Deere said.

When asked by CNN Business for further information about the dossier, Deere declined to comment. Neither White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany nor White House director of communications Alyssa Farah responded to additional emails seeking comment.