|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 19:35
|
|
posted:
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
there's plenty else that could be going on there, and as always you have to tie the rationale to the outcome with a mechanism. Minneapolis has shitloads of suburban whites who went more for Biden around the entire country by similar margins. Was it police, decorum, COVID, racial justice, gotv ...? Ps I lived there so it's not outsider speculation entirely. And again, I currently live in Portland, which of its democratic mayoral options, went with the most police-amenable in a huge turnaround from his January prospects (dead fish).
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
Since this is supposed to be the wonky data thread, please feel free to contribute to my resource thread I'm trying to update a several year old thread of various useful studies, compilations, and essays to help people better understand things and make better arguments.  HERE
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
Dude rolleyes posted all his work? Like there's tons? Maybe there's a culture fit problem here but rolleyes like did that big breakdown? I'm honestly not understanding how you two people are in the same thread reading the same posts and coming to such a conclusion. I think you might need an outside arbiter on this one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
Pick posted:Who the hell voted Trump/Coons with Biden on the ballot?! Wild. Coons' opponent was a woman who believed in Qanon. https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1328693266913644544 https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1328153492394008577 Ague Proof fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Nov 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Since this is supposed to be the wonky data thread, please feel free to contribute to my resource thread That's a great thread! I heartily encourage people to check it out. Pick posted:Dude rolleyes posted all his work? Like there's tons? Maybe there's a culture fit problem here but rolleyes like did that big breakdown? I'm honestly not understanding how you two people are in the same thread reading the same posts and coming to such a conclusion. I think you might need an outside arbiter on this one. I'm not seeing how he's coming to the conclusion that, "To the extent there is any pattern at all, in the districts where it made any difference, progressives did worse than Biden." That's a sweeping statement, and I'd like to know how he came to that conclusion. Ague Proof posted:Coons' opponent was a woman who believed in Qanon. Yeah, I'm also wondering if there were a chunk of voters in the state who just voted for Trump and left the rest blank as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
 MN's entire shift is because Minneapolis and St Paul went from 63% blue to 70%. Great! But the rest of the state did not shift at all and actually went more red in parts. There is no doubt that progressive politics works, and works fantastically, in blue districts. But we're arguing over whether they win everywhere else. Everything about 2020 says that at the very least (and hopefully only), the messaging is flawed and does not win in purple or red areas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
Here is the real "put up or shut up" moment of the whole attempted coup: is donald trump willing to put $8 million of money (not his, but money he intends to steal) behind it? https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1328772207150043137
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:...except in the purple and red districts where progressive candidates did win. Katie Porter still won reelection in an R+3 district, Jared Golden won in an R+2, Ann Kirkpatrick won in an R+1, etc. Okay, I see one problem: those are 2016 ratings. Naturally, a 2016 R+3 district is not a 2020 R+3 district. In fact, if it's a suburban district, its pres topline is probably D+7. Which, coincidentally, is what Porter won by! I don't have full AZ results yet, but AZ-2 is a bunch of desert (60k votes, 60-40R so far in 2020) and also most of Tucson plus its suburbs (500k votes, 60-40D in 2020). Kirkpatrick most likely won by less votes than Biden, maybe significantly so. Every single race you're citing has the same patterns. In places where the message works, it really works. Everywhere else, it's costing votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
Pretty sure that always happens to some degree?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:In what way is it costing votes, though? I'm not seeing how the data suggests that at all. You keep citing the fact that Biden overperformed a lot of these candidates, but the obvious explanation for this, IMO, is that voters were voting against Trump first and foremost, not that they necessarily preferred Biden's policies to progressive ones. Literally its been shown in data that voters voted specifically against trump, You can see that in Maine where Collins won reelection and Biden won the state. In many states and races Biden overperformed over the other candidates, and in many races its been shown that people only voted for trump and left other areas blank. You keep coming in here and not presenting data, and accuse others of spouting nonsense they can't back up while you yourself are doing the same thing then probating them when called out :Rollseyes: has been almost spot on every time he posts about the election and much of his information is backed up by sources. I think he has more of a feel then the pundits do regarding what happened this election and what we can do going forward, one of which is that we know that the trump coattails had more of an effect then we had thought but less of an effect because people only voted for him. Biden ultimately snaked a path to victory we never would have gotten with any other candidate, and really no candidate could have won it seems like if the turnout was the same. No one considered that the turnout would have so many voters for both sides that were new voters, or that as many would only be trump voters, the question is do they come back in 2022 with no trump on the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You keep citing the fact that Biden overperformed a lot of these candidates, but the obvious explanation for this, IMO, is that voters were voting against Trump first and foremost, not that they necessarily preferred Biden's policies to progressive ones. What I'm saying, specifically, is that Biden overperformed in close districts with progressive House candidates. Moderate House candidates tended to do slightly better than Biden in those same types of districts. There are mountains of data to support this, much of which I've already posted ITT. This does not mean voters preferred Biden's policies. It also doesn't mean they voted against Trump. The one thing that you can specifically take away from this election is that all other things being equal, moderate candidates did slightly better than progressives in close districts, enough so that it probably made the difference in a handful of races. Trying to determine anything else is trying to get inside of the heads of voters who aren't always rational and before anyone even knows who voted and how. But at no point can anyone say that progressives did better, because it's not true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
If Porter's district was +3R in 2016 but +7D now, something needs to account for that swing. Ideally we want all districts to be +XD at some point, because we've swung them. Saying Porter only succeeded because she's in a +XD district sort of ignores the point that SOMETHING swung the district 10 pts blue. Some part of that is anti-Trump animus but some part of that might well also be progressive activist energy. In my view the data doesn't seem to paint a clear picture either way that progressive policies helped or hurt candidates. A list of candidates who won on a certain platform doesn't really show much, and even then we'd have correlation at best. A well run centrist campaign is going to do better than an unorganized progressive, and vice versa. AOC seems to have figured out the organizational elements of this, and the party old guard should bring her in on that basis, even if they do not pick up her policy positions. That said, if M4A and GND and FF15, etc., can't be shown conclusively to hurt the party, that should be enough for them to be picked up more broadly. Even if they are electorally neutral, they have the added advantage of being, you know, good and correct policies. GND, specifically, being necessary for the continuation of the human race. Another thing to think about: Being a politician isn't just about taking the positions that are currently popular in your district and running on those. Representing your district is part of it, but leading is another part of it. Before AOC, 0% of people in her district supported the Green New Deal because it wasn't even a thing yet. So going out and making the case is important as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Here is the real "put up or shut up" moment of the whole attempted coup: is donald trump willing to put $8 million of money (not his, but money he intends to steal) behind it? If he were going to he would have. Trump isn't spending *his* money on anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
I mean, to some degree we know it at least can't be consistent policies. Trump completely flipped the republican party on free trade, the Iraq war, and isolationism. In like a year. These aren't minor things, these were defining issues as they relate to the party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:Literally its been shown in data that voters voted specifically against trump, You can see that in Maine where Collins won reelection and Biden won the state. In many states and races Biden overperformed over the other candidates, and in many races its been shown that people only voted for trump and left other areas blank. That's exactly what I'm saying, though. The fact that Biden overperformed progressive candidates in a lot of districts doesn't necessarily suggest that they ideologically align more with Biden than with progressives, or like his platform more than a progressive one. It suggests that they turned out to vote against Trump. So to suggest that progressive candidates and platforms actually cost the Dems votes doesn't seem to be backed up by the data we have. quote:You keep coming in here and not presenting data, and accuse others of spouting nonsense they can't back up while you yourself are doing the same thing then probating them when called out Again, I probated Aruin for shitposting. If you don't like how I handled it, contact an admin. I'm not going to welcome any more discussion on the topic in this thread, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Defund the police is still stupid. Obviously people don't want to defund the police. They want to burn down the police. Hence why dems should have run on the far superior slogan, "gently caress the Police". Yeah, as much as police brutality overwhelmingly impacts men and women of color, particularly black people, the experience of police and institutional abuse is a somewhat universal problem in many ways for a lot of working and middle class Americans and women especially, and it frustrates me sometimes that both the center and left, at different times, seemed to work to stomp out efforts to include that kind of advocacy in the discussion around policing. There were a lot of prominent centrists and conservatives decrying “white socialist opportunists” for trying to move the focus toward police abolition and away from funding black schools and focusing on racism. Portland got, and gets, a lot of that criticism, and it’s all nakedly done in bad faith and stupid for the most part. But eventually if felt like even progressives got on board and we started seeing similar messages from those corners, particularly as the elections approached. There was a strong movement at the beginning of the summer drawing attention to the way that domestic abusers and sexual predators on and off the force use police power and tools to find, silence, and punish victims. People discussed the relationship between family violence and policing. People talked about the treatment of immigrants by police, about the relationship between beat cops and local departments, ICE, and paramilitary/militia groups. There was discussion about police treatment of mentally ill people and the homeless. Discussion about policing on reservations and of native communities. There was a small but growing contingent of people discussing their own experiences with less overtly egregious but nevertheless abusive displays of police corruption (public displays of intimidation and aggression, abuse of businesses and service staff, committing actual crimes with impunity, general “gang in blue” behavior, etc). And then all of the footage that came out of the summer of people—white people—getting destroyed by cops like the Hippies of old. It seemed like we had a real potential for a moment of empathy and actual collective justice and work. So of course a jillion corporations and politicians had to jump in in order to course-correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
I mean, the Biden campaign kept talking about community policing. How successful was that, and where was it tried? What were the results that were actually seen from that? Was it a complete flop, or did parts work? Why is that not what we see now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
One thing thats been shown time and time again this election is running on local issues increases the ability for that person to do well, people that focused on national issues were the ones that underperformed across the board. Largely that is something that both parties go through cycles on, where they focus soley on national identity and politics for a few cycles and it ends up costing them seats across the board. Democrats did well in handling that in 06 then got eviscerated in 10 as the gop managed to outsmart them by focusing locally (ontop of the astroturfing but running out of townhalls did not help in the slightest). There are tons of state races that have shown focusing on the local environment can win races that were considered lost causes. The GOP lost seats in 18 partially due to this because they got outflanked by candidates that focused on local issues when the gop was being largely targeted as only focused on the national level. With 2020 the data coming out is showing that reps and senators that couldn't shake off the image that they only cared about national politics were the ones that underperformed, losing seats or voters that thought they didn't worry about their local area. We many times overlook how important that hometown concern can be to a candidate but it is critical to winning in races that many times we might not be able to win, its one reason that Sherrod Brown one in 18 when the rest of the state voted straight red.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:One thing thats been shown time and time again this election is running on local issues increases the ability for that person to do well, people that focused on national issues were the ones that underperformed across the board. Largely that is something that both parties go through cycles on, where they focus soley on national identity and politics for a few cycles and it ends up costing them seats across the board. Democrats did well in handling that in 06 then got eviscerated in 10 as the gop managed to outsmart them by focusing locally (ontop of the astroturfing but running out of townhalls did not help in the slightest). There are tons of state races that have shown focusing on the local environment can win races that were considered lost causes. The GOP lost seats in 18 partially due to this because they got outflanked by candidates that focused on local issues when the gop was being largely targeted as only focused on the national level. This is true - but you'll notice the points where people could focus on local issues and not national issues all feature the same thing: they're midterm elections. It is very hard to separate yourself from the national ticket in a presidential election year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
Pick posted:I mean, the Biden campaign kept talking about community policing. How successful was that, and where was it tried? What were the results that were actually seen from that? Was it a complete flop, or did parts work? Why is that not what we see now? The Camden NJ model seems to indicate some success if I recall correctly
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Again, I probated Aruin for shitposting. If you don't like how I handled it, contact an admin. I'm not going to welcome any more discussion on the topic in this thread, though. Disagreeing with you is not shitposting, no matter how many threads you attempt to take over and do this in. Take a step back and try to at least pretend you care about neutral moderation instead of owning your "liberal" enemies. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:With 2020 the data coming out is showing that reps and senators that couldn't shake off the image that they only cared about national politics were the ones that underperformed, losing seats or voters that thought they didn't worry about their local area. We many times overlook how important that hometown concern can be to a candidate but it is critical to winning in races that many times we might not be able to win, its one reason that Sherrod Brown one in 18 when the rest of the state voted straight red. This I agree with, and it shows the danger of having high-profile races with huge amounts of out-of-state donations. I'm hoping fewer Democratic candidates use consultancies like Mothership going forward, because they do not seem to have helped at all. eke out posted:Disagreeing with you is not shitposting, no matter how many threads you attempt to take over and do this in. Take a step back and try to at least pretend you care about neutral moderation instead of owning your "liberal" enemies. As I said, I don't mind people disagreeing with me. What I do mind are people saying things like, "You have largely ruined this thread with posts like these." Once more, this is not the thread to litigate this issue. Contact an admin if you feel the need to. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Nov 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinGrayWSB/status/1328782492913033219 This guy's got plenty of reasons to take shots at Trump and this does appear sort of a simplistic conclusion but oh god do I want this to be true
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinGrayWSB/status/1328782492913033219 it is pretty funny to me that the republican senate candidates demanded he resign for, uh, not stealing the election as part of an effort to suck up to trump without thinking what might happen if he felt like defending his career instead of resigning for their benefit
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's exactly what I'm saying, though. The fact that Biden overperformed progressive candidates in a lot of districts doesn't necessarily suggest that they ideologically align more with Biden than with progressives, or like his platform more than a progressive one. It suggests that they turned out to vote against Trump. So to suggest that progressive candidates and platforms actually cost the Dems votes doesn't seem to be backed up by the data we have. It does not suggest this. You are trying to narrate the intentions of an electorate, as far as I can tell, entirely on wishcasting. Show your work. The only thing that the actual data supports is that progressives and moderates ran very close to each other across competitive races, but with the moderates slightly outperforming. Additionally, we have two tenuous data points (FL 2018 and GA 2020) when a moderate and a progressive Dem ran on the same ticket, and the moderate outperformed the progressive both times. We'll have more data after Jan 5th; it's overwhelmingly likely either both or neither of them will get elected, but evidence suggests Ossoff will get slightly more votes than Warnock despite leftists being far more inspired by Warnock. More to the point, one thing the data emphatically does not support is that there's a large groundswell of progressive non voters waiting for a leftist to vote for. These voters had multiple chances to come out in this GE and other recent elections. They didn't. The voters who did come out in massive numbers, and who made the difference between Biden and Trump, were suburban moderates who singlehandedly both saved the election and heavily aligned with the Dems on cultural issues - including BLM, where a lot of suburban moms got filmed getting teargassed on purpose. Perhaps it's worth thinking about how to finish the job of converting these people on pocketbook issues as well, rather than to continue chasing after the mythical rural white voter who definitely isn't racist because 19th century praxis demands it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:47
|
|
|
Majorian posted:...except in the purple and red districts where progressive candidates did win. Katie Porter still won reelection in an R+3 district, Jared Golden won in an R+2, Ann Kirkpatrick won in an R+1, etc. I don't think anyone is arguing that progressive campaigns win "everywhere else," but they certainly seem to win in more areas than just deep blue districts. Lauren Underwood is at least somewhat progressive I think and held on in a R leaning district in Illinois
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
Regarding that list, including Jared Golden in a list of M4A supporters is bullshit. He did the same "M4A is the destination" schtick as Buttigieg and Harris in 2019, and in 2020 he flat-out ran away from it. https://www.wmtw.com/article/health-care-views-present-wide-gap-between-candidates-in-maines-2nd-congressional-district/33985658
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You keep asserting this, but I'm not seeing how the data suggests this. Would you please explain how this is the case? You need to show the data you keep saying exists then, your asking others to show their work but not providing your own, where :Rollseyes: is giving information that contradicts what you are trying to push as a narrative. If you are seeing data showing something different then post it because otherwise you can literally be saying anything to justify why someone else is wrong and their data is false, all based on your idea and feelings. I'm not calling you out on this, you are making others prove that your data is wrong without providing examples of why you are right. An actual serious issue that is rampant in DnD
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:You need to show the data you keep saying exists then, your asking others to show their work but not providing your own No, he's the one making the assertion that moderates outperformed progressives. The onus is on the person making the positive assertion. You're correct that I don't have the data on-hand to prove that progressives outperformed centrists, and I'm dropping that claim for now. But rolleyes is also making the opposite assertion, so it's perfectly reasonable to ask for his data as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1328789117212250112?s=21 Lol New York hates trump. Doesn't speak well for that stupid Ivanka as NY Senator spiel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:As the neoliberal project continues to make life worse and worse and worse for ordinary people it actually should be pretty possible to convert suburbanites on pocket book issues. If your kids can't get a job and leave the house, a federal jobs guarantee really starts to sound promising in a way it wouldn't have 15 years ago.  Or if they can't pay off their college loans, for that matter.Elotana posted:Regarding that list, including Jared Golden in a list of M4A supporters is bullshit. He did the same "M4A is the destination" schtick as Buttigieg and Harris in 2019, and in 2020 he flat-out ran away from it. Woof, fair enough. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Nov 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
Pick posted:https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1328789117212250112?s=21 I mean their AG ran on "I will put Trump in jail as soon as he's out of office" so yeah, not a shocker there lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
New York has hated Trump long before it was cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:New York has hated Trump long before it was cool. I remember watching SNL as a kid in the early 90's and them putting on sketches like this all the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1gC912LUq0 (God, what an artist we lost in Phil Hartman)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
Pick posted:https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1328789117212250112?s=21 Wonder if it's places like Monroe, Erie, and Onondaga, i.e. the ones that have the suburbs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 21:12
|
|