I would say: implying a God in anything is crass and stupid
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Headlines “Politics” [read the OP before posting]
- Thread starter vonFiedler
- Start date
- Status
Maybe you would have realised the reference to God in paragraph 3 was sarcastic if you had read the rest of the article
I read the article
Thanks for that.
I won a few election bets regarding Trump's defeat. I've been saying for years he was going to lose, but everyone still to this day is saying he was some political genius or this was a nail-biter election.
When all the votes are finally counted, Joe Biden will finish with ~52% of the popular vote, the exact average of Donald Trump's disapproval rating the last four years. American politics is highly predictable. Voters vote not on policy, but in petty culture wars which they vote against the candidate they dislike more.
All in all, I think the polls did a very very good job this cycle. A lot of people are claiming they were wrong, but the devil is in the details. It was an error to assume that Biden's leads would end up being +8-10 points. The important thing to watch was Biden's total vote share. Biden was polling at 48-50% in key battleground states, and 51-52% nationally. In "battleground states" such as Iowa, Ohio, and Texas, Biden never polled above 47%. Where polling aggregates such as 538 went wrong was assuming that undecided voters would split evenly. Undecided voters this election were always going to break for Trump. The 52% of Americans that disapproved of Trump (also known as the "anti-Trump vote") were already consolidated, and had been for almost four years.
For example, looking at Pennsylvania's forecast, Biden was up 50-45. Fivethirtyeight assumed this even undecided split would translate to a 52-47 Biden Victory, rather than assuming that almost all "undecided" voters would be primarily backing the incumbent. If you take my assumption of undecided voters being Trump supporters, the polling turns out to be dead on accurate across the board. No one who hated Trump was undecided at any point this election cycle of their feelings towards him.
Last edited:
Anyway, here are my predictions for 2024:
After the senate is lost for the first 2 years because democrats all went back to brunch, Biden has nominated at best 1 more SC justice and the pressure is on dems to win 2022. They will clutch it ever so slightly because last elections had states like Kentucky which were always going to be unwinnable. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, and Florida are up this time, which were all close races last time. Democrats, knowing how important this election will be, cannot possibly fuck it up this time right?
Well, hopefully not, because the last 2 years of the Biden administration are going to have to make up for a lost 2020 senate and plenty of attacks at them about covid and trump's tax bill (which they think is biden's fault). If he just weathers the storm and actually implements good meaningful policy in people's lives and manages to secure some sort of stimulus package, dems will leave 2024 with a very positive image.
Here's the problem though: Joseph will burst into a thousand tiny little pieces once covid destroys his lungs and his legs crumble from all the walking he has to do to congregate with other governments. He is not running in 2024 and Kamala is going to lose terribly because she didn't even get 10% of the popular vote in the primaries. Democrats need to prepare to put someone else up for election.
After the senate is lost for the first 2 years because democrats all went back to brunch, Biden has nominated at best 1 more SC justice and the pressure is on dems to win 2022. They will clutch it ever so slightly because last elections had states like Kentucky which were always going to be unwinnable. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, and Florida are up this time, which were all close races last time. Democrats, knowing how important this election will be, cannot possibly fuck it up this time right?
Well, hopefully not, because the last 2 years of the Biden administration are going to have to make up for a lost 2020 senate and plenty of attacks at them about covid and trump's tax bill (which they think is biden's fault). If he just weathers the storm and actually implements good meaningful policy in people's lives and manages to secure some sort of stimulus package, dems will leave 2024 with a very positive image.
Here's the problem though: Joseph will burst into a thousand tiny little pieces once covid destroys his lungs and his legs crumble from all the walking he has to do to congregate with other governments. He is not running in 2024 and Kamala is going to lose terribly because she didn't even get 10% of the popular vote in the primaries. Democrats need to prepare to put someone else up for election.
Would serving as VP not increase her chances of winning the primaries?
No. Kamala Harris isn’t a good candidate. It’s no surprise she did poorly in the primary. Joe hopefully will be up for it in 2024. If not, the Democrats best chance at holding the White House will be a moderate, close Biden ally.
As much as this election was a referendum on Trump, there is evidence that the electorate rejected Trump the person, rather than the Republican Party. A significant number of ticket splitters was apparent in Georgia, North Carolina, Maine, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, as Republicans did very well down ballot. Joe Biden was clearly the right guy punching above his weight this cycle.
Joe Biden did pretty horribly when he tried to run for president in 1988 and 2008. An unimpressive primary performance doesn't mean a candidate will always be doomed.
She’s not doomed to eternity, but likely not the best option for holding the White House should Joe not run in 2024. All those pissed off socially conservative (mostly white) men aren’t going anywhere. They’ll be angrier than ever in 2022 and 2024.
I feel like Joe Biden steps down in the middle of his term and Kamala gets the presidency so she could run as an incumbent in 2024 to better poise herself against any left wing opposition as that will make her more legitimate. Or maybe not idk. I'd rather that not happen but the dems aren't gonna want a dem primary challenge cuz then a Bernie-adjacent might actually do well and they don't want that. Joe def is not going to run again in 2024.
Anyone think anything will come of those rumors of people wanting recounts and court trials over the election results?
Trump is entitled to a recount in some states where the margin of victory is within a certain percent (iirc Wisconsin is 0.5%), I believe subject to some form of significant filing fee (I heard 3M) to prevent time wasting. There will likely be recounts, which have historically changed vote totals in the single or double digit vote totals. None of the races are close enough where a vote count has any likelihood of changing the state results, let alone the overall election.
As regards the court trials, the Trump court filings have zero basis in fact. Three have already been thrown out, one got the republicans laughed out of court by the judge ("Your honor, they won't let us watch the count! Are there people currently watching? There are some. Are there Republicans watching? Yes.") The election was conducted legitimately, transparently, and with proper legal process. Any effort to suggest otherwise is a lie.
Edit:
"As regards the court trials, the Trump court filings have zero basis in fact."
This is a bit uncharitable, a few of the filings do have a basis in fact but the facts they relate to are singularly procedural and neither allege nor prove wrongdoing.
Recounts will happen in Wisconsin and Georgia but won't change the result because of Biden's 5-digit lead in terms of votes, when recounts only change the result by a few hundred at most. Most of Trump's lawsuits have already been rejected, and given that he has no real evidence of any fraud occurring it is extremely unlikely that any court will take him seriously. As much as Trump's fanbase will try to say otherwise, none of this will have any influence on the outcome.
Yup Thomas Frank. I'm surprised MSM still lets him on. Writer of Listen Liberal-- I got to get around to reading his new History of Anti-Populism... how the capitalists turned "populism" from a left wing working class movement into a word aligned with fascism.
Last edited:
tim geithner is great though...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/11/joe-biden-voters-republicans-trump
don't let this narrow electoral victory fool you, the democrats are still incompetent strategists who shoot themselves in the foot anytime they get a chance. they'll will have to be browbeaten by 'the left' just to win elections, so I expect everyone who wants them to win elections to begin doing so now, thanks.
don't let this narrow electoral victory fool you, the democrats are still incompetent strategists who shoot themselves in the foot anytime they get a chance. they'll will have to be browbeaten by 'the left' just to win elections, so I expect everyone who wants them to win elections to begin doing so now, thanks.
There's a lot wrong with this article so I don't know where to begin. I'll stick with a few key points:
Let's start with the tendency for the media and entire political spectrum to brand even Democratic wins in a negative light. It's bullshit. Biden won in the largest electoral margin for a challenger to an incumbent (that didn’t feature 3rd party) since FDR.
- Biden's victory had little to do with white voters. White voters are in an educational re-alignment (suburbanites shifting Republican to Democrat, "working class" rural whites shifting from Democrat to Republican). The net effect is essentially a trade. Trump has accelerated this so well it's hard to view it as anything more than a willing trade. The fact remains - Democrats have lost the majority of white voters since 1964. What landmark legislation happened in 1964 that pushed White voters into solid Republican voters?
-Biden's victory, as all Democratic Presidents since 1964 was built on a coalition of people of marginalized groups - persons of color, LGBT, young voters, and the persistent gender gap. Those groups overwhelmingly back Democrats, as they did again this election. Biden won this race due to black voters in Detroit, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Latinx voters in Arizona and Nevada, Indigenous voters in Arizona - are we seeing a trend here? Why waste time analyzing why "only" 88% of black voters or 65% of Latinx voters voted blue when each cycle we make up an increasing share of the electorate?
-The Democratic "underperformance" down ballot was due to gerrymandering. Did we forget the House and State legislative maps were ruthlessly gerrymandered in 2010? In 2018, the Democrats needed to win the popular vote by 4% to have a shot at winning the majority. They won by 9%. Is it such a surprise that when they "only" win by 5% in 2020 that they would lose seats?
-The Senate has an extreme small-rural state bias. Despite being in the minority, Democratic Senators represent 15 million more voters than Republican Senators do. Even in a wave year, Democrats are not favored to win the Senate. This is a structural flaw in our democratic system just like the electoral college (where Joe Biden is likely to win the popular vote by an even bigger % margin than Obama '12 and net less total electoral votes).
With all that being said, the Democrats are poor messengers. However, it's mostly a function of having to include everyone that isn't a straight cisgender white dude into one party.
So yes, Democrats are going to have electoral struggles. They naturally have a much larger base than the Republicans but have extreme geographic disadvantages along with far more competing interests. We prevailed because the majority of this country isn't quite ready to trade democracy for autocracy. Only time will tell how long that remains true. Though it is...troubling that the majority of white voters were more than happy to live under a dictatorship.
Last edited:
The issue is Democratic candidates for senate in swing states got less votes than Biden. There are a couple different narratives you could construct here, the obvious one being that there were a number of votes for Biden that were actually votes against Trump. If that is the case, the Dems need to adjust their strategy or we could be stuck with a less abrasive, more insidious fascist down the line.
No.
?
Tim Geithner's work at both the New York Fed and the Dept of the Treasury basically saved this country from macroeconomic destruction. The TARP takeover of distressed Fannie Mae Debt prevented the housing catastrophe from spreading to additional hundreds of thousands of homeowners. The bailouts ended up being a massive success both in terms of net generating a fantastic return for taxpayers and in saving a fragile economy. He's a monetary policy expert on top of being an excellent Treasury Secretary and is basically responsible for why the US economy came back roaring after '08, much more so than Obama.
I agree with the general message of your post, but how is "third party" being defined here? I ask because if you interpret this as it's written, then this is just patently false; Jo Jorgensen was a third party candidate running in this election, was on the ballot in all 50 states + DC, and arguably won enough votes from people who would have otherwise voted GOP in enough key states (especially ones with razor-thin margins like WI, AZ, and GA) to secure an electoral victory for Joe Biden. Saying an election didn't feature third party wouldn't be true of any election in the 21st century.
How are you deciding which third party candidates "count" in terms of deciding if an election featured third party? Is there a popular vote threshold you're using that allows John B. Anderson and Ross Perot to count, but doesn't allow Jo Jorgensen to count?
He's pretty much explicitly just removing the cases where a third party candidate has actually won a significant chunk of the vote and this may have helped lead to an incumbent losing. Obviously all elections HAVE third party candidates, but 1-2% does not usually make a major impact, and moreover beating incumbents is very rare in modern US history. Aside from 2020, it has otherwise only happened in 2 rather unusual elections, since FDR.
Here are the results dating back to FDR. Years where an incumbent lost are bolded:
1932, described below. FDR defeats incumbent Hoover.
1936-1944, FDR wins re-election as incumbent
1948, the now-incumbent Truman (post FDR's death) wins election.
1952, Truman is “term limited” since he took over early in FDR's 4th term and had served for >6 years. Term limited in quotes because as the incumbent when the 22nd amendment was ratified, he was grandfathered in and could have run again. However, he 1) respected the amendment’s intent and 2) was unpopular at the time, and he chose not to run. Eisenhower wins open election.
1956, Eisenhower wins re-election.
1960, JFK wins open election.
1964, the now-incumbent Johnson (post JFK's death) wins election.
1968, Johnson waffles and ultimately does not run for reelection. Nixon wins an open election.
1972, Nixon wins re-election.
1976, described below. Carter defeats the now-incumbent Ford (post Nixon's resignation) WITHOUT large % of vote going to a third party candidate.
1980, described below. Reagan defeats incumbent, with large % of vote going to a third party candidate.
1984, Reagan wins re-election.
1988, Bush Sr. wins open election.
1992, described below. Clinton defeats incumbent, with large % of vote going to a third party candidate.
1996, Clinton wins re-election.
2000, Bush Jr. wins open election.
2004, Bush Jr. wins re-election.
2008, Obama wins open election.
2012, Obama wins re-election.
2016, Trump wins open election.
2020, described below. Biden defeats incumbent, WITHOUT large % of vote going to a third party candidate.
So the cases RaikouLover is excluding with that caveat about third parties are:
1980 where Reagan beat Carter by a 9.74% margin, with Anderson receiving 6.6% of the vote.
1992 where Clinton beat Bush Sr by a 5.56% margin, with Perot receiving 18.9% of the vote.
Total vote share going to a republican + democrat in the elections where an incumbent lost:
1932 - 57.4 + 39.7 = 97.1%. Only 2.9% went to all 3rd party candidates (mostly to the Socialist Party).
1976 - 50.1 + 48.0 = 98.1%. Only 1.9% went to all 3rd party candidates (mostly to Eugene McCarthy, an "independent" who had been a democratic senator, though notably by 1980 he was supporting Reagan for president, so his alignment is a bit hard to pin down.)
1980 - 50.7 + 41.0 = 91.7%. 8.3% went to all 3rd party candidates (mostly to Anderson, an "independent" who had been a republican member of the house and ran to the left of Reagan).
1992 - 43.0 + 37.4 = 80.4%. 19.6% went to all 3rd party candidates (mostly to Perot, an independent).
2020 - 50.8 + 47.4 = 98.2%. Preliminary results, obviously... but the point is this election is a heck of a lot more like FDR's victory over Hoover or Carter's over Ford than the only other 2 times in modern history that an incumbent has been defeated. And his margin is better than FDR's or Carter's was.
Another way to look at it if you don't want to get into "how many votes for a third party 'matter'" is just the raw vote share. Under that measure, Biden won a larger vote share (50.8%) than any challenger since FDR.
Here are the results dating back to FDR. Years where an incumbent lost are bolded:
1932, described below. FDR defeats incumbent Hoover.
1936-1944, FDR wins re-election as incumbent
1948, the now-incumbent Truman (post FDR's death) wins election.
1952, Truman is “term limited” since he took over early in FDR's 4th term and had served for >6 years. Term limited in quotes because as the incumbent when the 22nd amendment was ratified, he was grandfathered in and could have run again. However, he 1) respected the amendment’s intent and 2) was unpopular at the time, and he chose not to run. Eisenhower wins open election.
1956, Eisenhower wins re-election.
1960, JFK wins open election.
1964, the now-incumbent Johnson (post JFK's death) wins election.
1968, Johnson waffles and ultimately does not run for reelection. Nixon wins an open election.
1972, Nixon wins re-election.
1976, described below. Carter defeats the now-incumbent Ford (post Nixon's resignation) WITHOUT large % of vote going to a third party candidate.
1980, described below. Reagan defeats incumbent, with large % of vote going to a third party candidate.
1984, Reagan wins re-election.
1988, Bush Sr. wins open election.
1992, described below. Clinton defeats incumbent, with large % of vote going to a third party candidate.
1996, Clinton wins re-election.
2000, Bush Jr. wins open election.
2004, Bush Jr. wins re-election.
2008, Obama wins open election.
2012, Obama wins re-election.
2016, Trump wins open election.
2020, described below. Biden defeats incumbent, WITHOUT large % of vote going to a third party candidate.
So the cases RaikouLover is excluding with that caveat about third parties are:
1980 where Reagan beat Carter by a 9.74% margin, with Anderson receiving 6.6% of the vote.
1992 where Clinton beat Bush Sr by a 5.56% margin, with Perot receiving 18.9% of the vote.
Total vote share going to a republican + democrat in the elections where an incumbent lost:
1932 - 57.4 + 39.7 = 97.1%. Only 2.9% went to all 3rd party candidates (mostly to the Socialist Party).
1976 - 50.1 + 48.0 = 98.1%. Only 1.9% went to all 3rd party candidates (mostly to Eugene McCarthy, an "independent" who had been a democratic senator, though notably by 1980 he was supporting Reagan for president, so his alignment is a bit hard to pin down.)
1980 - 50.7 + 41.0 = 91.7%. 8.3% went to all 3rd party candidates (mostly to Anderson, an "independent" who had been a republican member of the house and ran to the left of Reagan).
1992 - 43.0 + 37.4 = 80.4%. 19.6% went to all 3rd party candidates (mostly to Perot, an independent).
2020 - 50.8 + 47.4 = 98.2%. Preliminary results, obviously... but the point is this election is a heck of a lot more like FDR's victory over Hoover or Carter's over Ford than the only other 2 times in modern history that an incumbent has been defeated. And his margin is better than FDR's or Carter's was.
Another way to look at it if you don't want to get into "how many votes for a third party 'matter'" is just the raw vote share. Under that measure, Biden won a larger vote share (50.8%) than any challenger since FDR.
Last edited:
I hope this doesn't come off as a nitpick, but Truman wasn't term limited. The amendment that put in action the two-term limit didn't apply to Truman, as it was proposed during his presidency. However, he did choose not to exploit it (since his approval ratings at the time weren't really high anyways) To refer to the wording of the section:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Another nitpick, but in 1976 it wasn't an open election as Carter defeated the incumbent Ford, who became president when Nixon resigned.
Thanks both. Edited it in. This is what I get for writing quickly. Obviously I knew Ford, just being stupid. Truman and the 22nd amendment though, I actually learned something today. Didn’t know he was grandfathered in. Thanks!
- Status