Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Handsome Ralph
Sep 3, 2004

Johnny Pussy?




Welcome to the Polliwonks 2021: News, Polling, Policy, and Party Strategy Thread. This thread is a place to debate and discuss in a more wonkish manner what's happening in D.C. and State Houses across the country as well as special (Sweet Georgia) and off-year elections (Hello Virginia and New Jersey).


Many thanks to Acebuckeye13 for this

What does that mean?

We’re here to post like wonks about politics and the machinery that runs it. Which means we’re here to discuss things in a dryer and more academic nature. But not too dry, as we are on a dying comedy website after all. We’re here to talk about what happened, and why it happened. Not what we would like to happen or think should happen given our political beliefs.

What you should post:

* News about the policy rollouts, congressional legislation and votes, and special/off year elections
* Incoming Biden cabinet appointees and other appointments and what they mean for policies/governance going forward
* Polling and election forecasting models
* Redistricting and demographic shifts
* Party strategy and direction
* Marketing and messaging strategy for campaigns and policy rollouts. Things like, why was Reagan’s “Morning in America” ad so effective? Was Obama’s use of “Yes we can!” good at rallying his base? Why did Clinton’s ‘93 campaign for national health care fail?
* The results of past political campaigns, events that may have impacted them, what we learned from them and how we can apply those lessons going forward

What you shouldn't post:

* Your personal voting choice or how you think others should vote in upcoming elections, as well as the value and ethics of voting for a particular party or candidate, not voting, or voting third party
* Relitigating past elections/primaries IE: “Bernie would have won!” “If it wasn’t for those damned Russians!”, etc. You can discuss them, but doing so minus any serious insight on elections going forward will not end well for you
* Ideological differences between wings of the Democratic/Republican parties or political theory in general
* Your personal opinion of candidates, admin officials, and other elected officials- this thread is not a referendum on them as individuals nor for you to tell us how you feel about them on a personal level
* Keeping score of what predictions other posters got right or missed in prior elections
* Twitter hot takes from randos or yourself. If it’s from a pollster, a journalist or someone with credibility on a subject matter that this thread covers, by all means post it (in addition to your own commentary about why you posted it), but if you drop tweets in this thread from randos or your own twitter account with zero explanation or context, do so at the risk of eating a probe
* How if a specific thing is/isn’t happening, that we are all doomed as a result. DOOOOOOMED!

Most of all This thread is not USPOL 2. Post accordingly.

Also keep in mind, if you post analysis or predictions that for lack of a better word are wrong, people are fully within their rights to (constructively) call you out on your flawed analysis provided they are doing so while following the spirit of the thread (Read: You had better have receipts showing why that analysis is wrong). This thread is for nuanced discussion AND debate.


Advocacy and Activism
Advocacy and activism are two of the most visible ways in which policy is pushed forward, and Mat Cauthon was kind enough to provide this write up about that subject.

”Mat Cauthon” posted:

Joe Biden is going to be the next President of the United States. Whether that makes you're happy about that, frustrated by it, or indifferent to it, the fact remains that he will be the person at the helm of the nation and he will wield immense power to shape policy that can shift the material conditions and everyday lives of millions of people. Given his record as a Senator, his time as Vice President to Barack Obama, and various rumblings about his cabinet appointees there are legitimate concerns about how to push him left and increase the chances of the progressive, even transformative, policies that are needed to solve the various crises on the horizon (or at our doors).

The Squad, Senators Sanders and Warren, and other progressives within the Democratic Party are making efforts to publicly push, cajole, or coerce Biden into aligning with their policy aims. They are supported by various powerbrokers within the Democratic Party apparatus as well as social justice and public good organizations, all of whom see the Biden presidency as a chance to expand the scope of what government can accomplish in this country, rather than just settling for the false comfort of returning to a pre-Trump "normal". However, their efforts will be in vain without a concerted, forceful swell of public support and political will from many millions of voters. It will be necessary to not only mobilize but organize people all across this country to such an extent that their collective voice cannot be ignored and politicians face a credible fear of being held accountable for their inaction or malfeasance.

So how do we do that? What are the targets? Where do we start?

One way is strong ground level organizing with a clear strategic goal. Organizers in Georgia and Arizona were pivotal in delivering those states for Joe Biden, in part by focusing on ground level canvassing and voter engagement that the Biden campaign eschewed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather than allow this to become an impetus for further attrition of party support, this can be an opening where progressives can base build, develop power, and make clear their influence at the national level - and supplant the established consultant or managerial cohort that currently dominates the conversations around policy.

posted:

“You don’t beat Trump­ism with ads, you beat it with orga­niz­ing,” says Jacob Swen­son-Lengyel, direc­tor of com­mu­ni­ca­tions at Penn­syl­va­nia Stands Up, a coali­tion devot­ed to build­ing peo­ple pow­er across the state. Swen­son-Lengyel explained that vol­un­teers engaged com­mu­ni­ties in lengthy con­ver­sa­tions about how they were car­ing for one anoth­er dur­ing the pan­dem­ic and what it would mean to have a gov­ern­ment that did the same. In all, the orga­ni­za­tion spoke to over 400,000 eli­gi­ble voters.

By estab­lish­ing rela­tion­ships with com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers that will last well beyond the 2020 elec­tion, orga­ni­za­tions like SONG Pow­er, a grass­roots effort focused on the South, offer a pow­er­ful mod­el for base-build­ing. ​“We need to be ori­ent­ed toward slow and respect­ful work,” says orga­niz­ing lead Jade Brooks. ​“How do we com­bine that approach with an elec­toral cycle that’s all about [imme­di­ate] impact? [Part of] the answer is to invest in build­ing com­mu­ni­ty-based and root­ed orga­ni­za­tions that are going to stick around…long after the elec­tions and will invest in the lead­er­ship of Black and brown lead­ers who have been doing the work [rather than] consultants.”

This is pre­cise­ly the work SONG Pow­er car­ried out with Black, Indige­nous, and peo­ple of col­or com­mu­ni­ties in South Car­oli­na and Geor­gia. Many of these peo­ple had nev­er vot­ed before, but out­reach includ­ing the dis­tri­b­u­tion of food, coats and lit­er­a­ture helped bring them into the elec­toral process.

From here: https://inthesetimes.com/article/jo...grassroots-left

Emphasis mine. It's important to note that in this moment of increased precarity that even electoral organizing needs to recognize the harsh conditions that most people are surviving and build structures that support them even as they mobilize. It's difficult to get people to believe in the promise of tomorrow when they are going without food, shelter, or basic necessities today.

Our targets should be varied and ambitious. Already we have seen muddled and inconsistent language in the conversation around a possible student debt relief action when Biden takes office. Well-meaning or not, the government will give us as little as they think we will accept, so it is necessary to aim for the stars in our demands. We should extend the same ethos to criticism and commentary on Biden's cabinet choices - accepting someone who is "not really that bad in comparison" or "only spent a few years as a lobbyist" is accepting a foreclosure on the possibilities of what can be accomplished.

posted:

Help­ing the pres­i­dent with this task are thou­sands of polit­i­cal appointees sta­tioned across the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. These indi­vid­u­als inter­pret, admin­is­ter and enforce the law. And they do so with con­sid­er­able dis­cre­tion, as the pres­i­dent and inner cir­cle can­not pos­si­bly keep up with every key deci­sion. Depend­ing on their pri­or­i­ties, appointees may help or hurt work­ing peo­ple — and pad or under­cut cor­po­rate prof­its and wealthy people’s wallets.

It should come as no sur­prise that recent admin­is­tra­tions have favored the lat­ter set of inter­ests. Pres­i­dents of both par­ties have tend­ed to sur­round them­selves with their friends and bene­fac­tors, often peo­ple with lit­tle to no under­stand­ing of work­ing people’s dai­ly strug­gles. Those fig­ures, through legal inter­pre­ta­tion and admin­is­tra­tion, have tend­ed to make imper­fect laws even worse in real­i­ty than they are on paper.

With­out out­side pres­sure, Biden seems like­ly to repeat these same mis­takes. His list of cam­paign fundrais­ers, advis­ers and donors is replete with cor­po­rate exec­u­tives and indi­vid­u­als in the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal, ener­gy, pri­vate equi­ty, real estate, and bank­ing indus­tries (among many oth­ers). If ele­vat­ed to posi­tions of pow­er in the exec­u­tive branch, these fig­ures are sure to pri­or­i­tize pri­vate prof­it over the pub­lic good. The Left can­not cede such crit­i­cal ter­rain to these actors with­out a fight, even if such a vic­to­ry rep­re­sents only a small bat­tle in the broad­er fight for fun­da­men­tal change.

This isn’t mere­ly a defen­sive play. Rather, pro­gres­sives should think seri­ous­ly about the good that the right peo­ple in the right posi­tions could do — and which fig­ures will be open and respon­sive to out­side advocacy. Even more impor­tant­ly, how­ev­er, these pro­gres­sive fig­ures would pro­vide the space to demand even more. Peo­ple who no longer fear miss­ing a stu­dent loan pay­ment will be more like­ly to leave a bad job, or take the risk of orga­niz­ing their work­place. Peo­ple who no longer fear depor­ta­tion are more like­ly to make their voic­es heard, and on and on.

Groups on the Left will engage with the Biden cam­paign dif­fer­ent­ly, but all should con­sid­er incor­po­rat­ing bet­ter per­son­nel among their goals. For those groups that are con­sid­er­ing an endorse­ment, mak­ing con­crete per­son­nel com­mit­ments a pre­con­di­tion for sup­port may be a way to max­i­mize pos­i­tive impact (and min­i­mize bad outcomes).

From here: https://inthesetimes.com/article/jo...ntments-cabinet

Administrations do listen when there is strong public response to cabinet appointments, and this is often an underutilized method of shifting the political viewpoints within an administration. Having strong progressive ideals represented in important cabinet positions can mean the difference in how a President responds to public advocacy campaigns, conceives of the scope of a policy proposal, or recognizes the necessity of movement on an important issue. There are many different entry points and it would behoove all of us to think about intervention points within the breadth and complexity of government where smart, focused tactics can affect a chance that has a ripple effect in the larger context.

To that end, the starting point as always is the local. Base building starts at home and the sooner you get involved the stronger the movement becomes. Regardless of what issue you choose to organize around or what organization you sign up with, many of their strategies will align around a vision that the next four years are our best (and maybe last) chance to stave off the worst and create the structures to manifest a better world. The only wrong choice you can make is to do nothing. Even if you aren't interested in electoral politics, the work of mutual aid and other organizing efforts based around community are still necessary and create the space wherein communities can leverage their power and influence.

I strongly encourage you to check out his Mutual Aid, Activism, and Organizing Thread if any of this interests you.

Handsome Ralph fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Nov 23, 2020

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Handsome Ralph
Sep 3, 2004

Johnny Pussy?




Reserved.

i say swears online
Mar 4, 2005

medio de fonte leporum surgo amariter




https://twitter.com/davechen/status/1330882526420807685

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

dwarf74
Sep 2, 2012






Buglord

I am so glad this thread is back.

So it seems to me that the GA runoffs will give us a glimpse of where 2020's polling went wrong. Maybe; GA polling was almost uniquely good.

Still, there's still a pandemic and no Trumps on the ticket. So that's an experimental setup of a sort, with one variable controlled.

TheDeadlyShoe
Feb 14, 2014

pretense is my co-pilot


https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...ublicans-438027

quote:

Georgia Senate airbender Raphael Warnock has made his faith a defining element of his candidacy. The GOP aims to make it his fatal flaw.

Republicans are taking to the airwaves and social media to frame the pastor as a radical and tool of the "extremist" left. Using sound bites from his past sermons, they’re making the case to Georgia voters that the Democrat is anti-police and anti-military. TV ads play up his criticisms of police officers and try to connect him to polarizing figures like Fidel Castro, who visited Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church in 1995 while Warnock was a youth pastor there. Taking several pages out of the 2008 playbook, they’ve also tried to tie him to Jeremiah Wright, the former senior pastor of Trinity United Church of Chicago, whom Republicans used to try to sink Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

...

Will it land?: Warnock allies and those familiar with Georgia politics see the Republican playbook as an outgrowth of their appeals to the base — something they have to double down on without Trump atop their ticket to energize voters.

“It don’t resonate with people that really know Rev. Warnock,” said Tracey Thornhill, president of the Atlanta AFSCME chapter, during a Warnock press conference in Atlanta. “It resonates with people who probably were going to vote for Loeffler anyway.”

just attacking the religion of the guy who is the pastor at the same church as MLK Jr., why are all these dogs barking?

national GOP throwing $80 million in ads into the Georgia races already and they are doubling down on what we might politely call "base turnout".

"Twitter will hand @POTUS to Biden on Inauguration Day, even if Trump doesn’t concede"

wrap it up Trump, its over

Epinephrine
Nov 7, 2008


I see we're off to a good start! Thanks for getting this back on its feet Handsome Ralph and whoever else was involved in the background.

I'd like to port the redistricting discussion from USPOL over here:
The GOP will have less redistricting power this year than they did in 2010. However, they still have some redistricting power and if they try to repeat 2010 Dems will lose some seats. Gerrymandering wears off over time as populations move around and coalitions shift. The 2018 results were a combination of a legit blue wave and a loss of gerrymander effectiveness. 2020 will allow the GOP to shore up some of the 2010 gerrymanders. At the same time, Dems (I'm thinking of VA particularly) won't be able to gerrymander back due to new rules preventing gerrymandering. Where they can, the question will be whether ideological opposition to gerrymandering will lead to unilateral disarmament.

That said, there's a big wildcard that could neuter the whole process this year: 2020 was a weird year electorally. The last race with the level of turnout seen this year is 1900. Trump and Biden both managed to turn out a large number of new voters and we don't know yet whether this reflects a new state of affairs in the US (as in, we've all woken up and decided we should vote more often); how much of that was due to mail-in ballot access; how much of that was Trump being unique in turning out uneducated voters for him; how much was driven by the (imo correct) decision by Dems to avoid knocking on doors this year; and how much was due to the massive pile of COVID bodies Trump's incompetence wrought. On top of that I'm not sure we really understand how stable the shifts in coalition and turnout are, at least not with the level of confidence a GOP operative might have had in 2010. That's a lot of unknowns to account for, and the less you know about how things will look in 2022 the harder it is to gerrymander.

Epinephrine fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Nov 23, 2020

Pick
Jul 19, 2009

powerful beyond man's wildest imagination


Nap Ghost

Please allow one short non-data post for me to thank you for the OP and for re-starting the thread and that I appreciate it

Deteriorata
Feb 6, 2005

The general increasing love of athletics is benefiting our young men, and making their lives better and more worth the living.

Epinephrine posted:

I see we're off to a good start! Thanks for getting this back on its feet Handsome Ralph and whoever else was involved in the background.

I'd like to port the redistricting discussion from USPOL over here:

The GOP will have less redistricting power this year than they did in 2010. However, they still have some redistricting power and if they try to repeat 2010 Dems will lose some seats. Gerrymandering wears off over time as populations move around and coalitions shift. The 2018 results were a combination of a legit blue wave and a loss of gerrymander effectiveness. 2020 will allow the GOP to shore up some of the 2010 gerrymanders. At the same time, Dems (I'm thinking of VA particularly) won't be able to gerrymander back due to new rules preventing gerrymandering. Where they can, the question will be whether ideological opposition to gerrymandering will lead to unilateral disarmament.

That said, there's a big wildcard that could neuter the whole process this year: 2020 was a weird year electorally. The last race with the level of turnout seen this year is 1900. Trump and Biden both managed to turn out a large number of new voters and we don't know yet whether this reflects a new state of affairs in the US (as in, we've all woken up and decided we should vote more often); how much of that was due to mail-in ballot access; how much of that was Trump being unique in turning out uneducated voters for him; how much was driven by the (imo correct) decision by Dems to avoid knocking on doors this year; and how much was due to the massive pile of COVID bodies Trump's incompetence wrought. On top of that I'm not sure we really understand how stable the shifts in coalition and turnout are, at least not with the level of confidence a GOP operative might have had in 2010. That's a lot of unknowns to account for, and the less you know about how things will look in 2022 the harder it is to gerrymander.

I'm cautiously optimistic for 2022, regardless of further Republican gerrymandering and obstruction. There's likely to be a pretty good post-Covid economic boom and lots of optimism after emerging from our collective bunkers, so Biden could have his own "Morning in America" situation.

Not a slam-dunk certainty, of course, but cause for hope.

Pick
Jul 19, 2009

powerful beyond man's wildest imagination


Nap Ghost

That is actually a pretty good point; I don't know if Republicans themselves know what to chop out with respect to the 'burbs. They know they've got rural, and they know Democrats have major urban centers, but given that the 2020 shift was mainly in the suburbs and we have good reason to assume it might be a very Trump-specific phenomenon, if I were charged to gerrymander, I might be very wary of doing so based on 2020 data.

e: or, to be clear, 2018 data either. Which probably had a different form of Trump effect (though more Dem-driven).

e: or 2016 data, where...

Pick fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Nov 23, 2020

Nelson Mandingo
Mar 27, 2005



Deteriorata posted:

I'm cautiously optimistic for 2022, regardless of further Republican gerrymandering and obstruction. There's likely to be a pretty good post-Covid economic boom and lots of optimism after emerging from our collective bunkers, so Biden could have his own "Morning in America" situation.

Not a slam-dunk certainty, of course, but cause for hope.

I genuinely hope this is the case. What causes me concern is the chickens of the Trump administration coming home to roost as far as trade wars, tax cuts, excessive unproductive spending and so on. And of course, the deficit will miraculously become a problem again on January 21st....

I think Joe's got a heck of a job ahead of him but I hope you're correct and there is a post-covid boom going on to keep the ship running right.

TulliusCicero
Jul 29, 2017

"They don't even have a horse."





Oh praise be to the mods and goons who were behind the rebirth of this excellent thread! You folks rock!

Cross posting for relevance to GA


How likely is it to hurt the GOP in Georgia Run-offs, as it seems quite the schism is emerging?

It seems like Ossof and Warnock can pull this thing off more and more...

TulliusCicero fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Nov 23, 2020

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003
crazy people don't like me

#MApoli goons, did you hear that rumor that Marty Walsh might be gunning for Labor Secretary?

weekly font
Dec 1, 2004


Everytime I try to fly I fall
Without my wings
I feel so small
Guess I need you baby...





Pick posted:

Please allow one short non-data post for me to thank you for the OP and for re-starting the thread and that I appreciate it

Yeah seriously USPol was, uh, not for me. We cool to still talk about general election stuff that’s still floating like state vote certifications and legal fuckery?

Handsome Ralph
Sep 3, 2004

Johnny Pussy?




weekly font posted:

Yeah seriously USPol was, uh, not for me. We cool to still talk about general election stuff that’s still floating like state vote certifications and legal fuckery?

That's fine to discuss here (though I would prefer it's in the context of what it means going forward for future elections, etc), all I ask if that you put some effort into it.

Dropping tweets about Trump's latest legal shenanigans with a pithy one sentence "He's at it again!" isn't really in the spirit of the thread and is better suited to USPOL if not CSPAM.

Pick
Jul 19, 2009

powerful beyond man's wildest imagination


Nap Ghost

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-voted-in-2020/

New 538 article about Hispanic voters. Talks a bit about how it's getting conflated a bit with some urban/rural stuff and education level stuff.

Rea
Apr 5, 2011

Komi-san won.


https://twitter.com/USA_Polling/sta...913824334032903

Is discussing numbers like this okay in New Polliwonks?

I mean, seriously, holy poo poo. I wonder if Fox is gonna fire their decision desk and replace it with open reality-denying partisans, because that early AZ call has not gone well for them.

radicaldreamer
May 14, 2013


Rea posted:

https://twitter.com/USA_Polling/sta...913824334032903

Is discussing numbers like this okay in New Polliwonks?

I mean, seriously, holy poo poo. I wonder if Fox is gonna fire their decision desk and replace it with open reality-denying partisans, because that early AZ call has not gone well for them.

I don't think these new numbers will last. Fox News viewers will simply forget about the election as they sundown and get back to raging about Biden and the Democrats.

zoux
Apr 28, 2006



I think they stand by their Decision Desk, for whatever reason Murdoch has some kind of respect for an independent service like that, if not he'd've made Rasmussen the official Fox News pollster years ago. Also, they were actually correct in the end. I do not doubt whatsoever that the viewership was enraged by it, but the AZ call was just the beginning. They really haven't been giving the admin much leash with their increasingly ridiculous voter fraud claims, at least relative to their usual sycophancy. This culminated with Tucker Himself saying that Sidney Powell was full of poo poo last week, which led to him being pizzagated by online nutjobs.

This isn't universal across the shows, Lou Dobbs for example seems to actually believe the fraud claims and Pirro is still angling for that AG job, but news and hosts (as far as I've seen from viral clips anyway, I will never watch a second of Fox News irl) seem to be skeptical of voter fraud claims and pundits are trying to do that audience-of-one thing where they try to gently wheedle Trump into accepting reality.

As for what happens - in two months they'll go right back to bashing the everliving hell out of the socialist communist fascist Biden and I think they'll regain a lot of their audience. Whatever the Trump news network ends up being, it's own thing or grafted on OANN/Newsmax, it will still be run by a bunch of chiseling, rat-fink charlatans who are utterly incompetent. People think "Trump knows TV" but Trump didn't have a drat thing to do with his success on TV that was all Mark Burnett. I'm skeptical that Fox News is going to be supplanted by MAGA news. They may even win Trump back because obsequious flattery actually works on him and they can pivot right back to "Biden stole the election" after the inauguration and everyone isn't so antsy about constitutional crises.

zoux fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Nov 23, 2020

Handsome Ralph
Sep 3, 2004

Johnny Pussy?




zoux posted:

I think they stand by their Decision Desk, for whatever reason Murdoch has some kind of respect for an independent service like that, if not he'd've made Rasmussen the official Fox News pollster years ago. Also, they were actually correct in the end. I do not doubt whatsoever that the viewership was enraged by it, but the AZ call was just the beginning. They really haven't been giving the admin much leash with their increasingly ridiculous voter fraud claims, at least relative to their usual sycophancy. This culminated with Tucker Himself saying that Sidney Powell was full of poo poo last week, which led to him being pizzagated by online nutjobs.

This isn't universal across the shows, Lou Dobbs for example seems to actually believe the fraud claims and Pirro is still angling for that AG job, but news and hosts (as far as I've seen from viral clips anyway, I will never watch a second of Fox News irl) seem to be skeptical of voter fraud claims and pundits are trying to do that audience-of-one thing where they try to gently wheedle Trump into accepting reality.

As for what happens - in two months they'll go right back to bashing the everliving hell out of the socialist communist fascist Biden and I think they'll regain a lot of their audience. Whatever the Trump news network ends up being, it's own thing or grafted on OANN/Newsmax, it will still be run by a bunch of chiseling, rat-fink charlatans who are utterly incompetent. People think "Trump knows TV" but Trump didn't have a drat thing to do with his success on TV that was all Mark Burnett. I'm skeptical that Fox News is going to be supplanted by MAGA news. They may even win Trump back because obsequious flattery actually works on him and they can pivot right back to "Biden stole the election" after the inauguration and everyone isn't so antsy about constitutional crises.

Yeah I think this take is on the money.

The thing with Fox News is that they keep things like their decision desk and actual news reporting as clean as they can so they have that veneer of respectability and can continue getting access to politicians and what not. It's the foot in the door approach where the foot is respected but the rest of the body is a god awful human being screaming about migrant caravans and Black Lives Matter ruining the country.

OANN doesn't do that so it's far easier for people to discount them and their reporting. It also causes less people to give a poo poo if they were to suddenly told they no longer had credentials for the White House.

Pick
Jul 19, 2009

powerful beyond man's wildest imagination


Nap Ghost

I think media messaging is extremely relevant to this topic generally, and boy, that is a huge shift. But I really don't think it will last. A big thing about Fox is that it tends to be on in things like airports and hotel lobbies and things like that, so people come back around. They'll overhear Fox saying something about how evil Nancy Pelosi is and then they'll be like, yeah, that's what I think too, and then they'll probably basically go back.

Also, I think the absolute lunatics are frankly just a bad bargain. They're literally abusive. I know a lot of people have bad retail horror stories, but there are a lot of places I have worked where if a customer or client is bad enough, you do tell them to get packing, because ultimately they are not worth the damage they do.

dwarf74
Sep 2, 2012






Buglord

zoux posted:

Whatever the Trump news network ends up being, it's own thing or grafted on OANN/Newsmax, it will still be run by a bunch of chiseling, rat-fink charlatans who are utterly incompetent. People think "Trump knows TV" but Trump didn't have a drat thing to do with his success on TV that was all Mark Burnett. I'm skeptical that Fox News is going to be supplanted by MAGA news. They may even win Trump back because obsequious flattery actually works on him and they can pivot right back to "Biden stole the election" after the inauguration and everyone isn't so antsy about constitutional crises.
Remember that per the NYT investigation, Trump's main business is in branding. The buildings, golf courses, etc. - those are all secondary. The real money-maker for Trump has been smacking his name and image onto whatever he can find and collecting a check for it.

The most likely outcome isn't Trump founding his own network or even buying an existing one (lol with what money). It's going to be Newsmax or OANN entering into a licensing deal with him, paying him some decent money for the name branding thus becoming Trump TV, and giving a show to one of his kids that he calls into occasionally to ramble while they spew whatever qanon idiocy they settle on for a given day. (I don't think he's capable of running or even starring in a daily show nowadays.)

PC LOAD LETTER
May 23, 2005
WTF?!

Slippery Tilde

TulliusCicero posted:

How likely is it to hurt the GOP in Georgia Run-offs, as it seems quite the schism is emerging?

It seems like Ossof and Warnock can pull this thing off more and more...

Its not clear yet if there is a real schism forming but yeah one could (hopefully) form up.

There have been plenty of threats previously by R voters to not pull the lever for the next RINO but come election time they nearly always end up shrugging and pulling the lever for the same ol' R's anyways when the option is that a D might win.

If we still see loud and proud talk by R's en masse telling the GOP to gently caress off in a month come runoff voting time than yeah there might be a real schism going on here.

Until then though all we can do is speculate and try not to get our hopes up too high that the Trump base + qult members split with the GOP in a significant fashion.

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Nov 23, 2020

ninjahedgehog
Feb 17, 2011

It's time to kick the tires and light the fires, Big Bird.




So glad to see the second-best thread (after Presidentchat) in D&D return.

Have there been any long-form analysis articles yet about Fox/AP's decision to call Arizona early on election night, their reasoning behind it, and if there are any regrets about that? The Nates spent a lot of time on Twitter over the week or so post-election day talking about how it was a bad idea that just happened to be correct, but a more in-depth analysis would be fun to read.

zoux
Apr 28, 2006



Also people don't go to Fox just to hear the lies they want to hear, they go to Fox to hear Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and Dan Bongino say the lies they want to hear. Right now Newsmax has got Benny pretending to be Tucker Carlson.

https://twitter.com/newsmax/status/1330332248906866693

He's a pathological plagiarist. Anyway, they aren't going to be able to build the kind of pundit stable Fox has, they won't have the money to pay talent and if Fox is already having trouble selling ads because of controversy - on the highest rated cable shows in those timeslots - how is loving Newsmax going to sell ads for Boris Epshteyn's MAGA Mania hour when they have 1/100th the market share?

Fox News is a blue ribbon brand with international reach and massive synergy across other Murdoch-owned platforms in every English-speaking company in the world delivering a top of the line product on par in terms of polish with all the other cable news outlets, you just can't replicate it by fiat.

Grooglon
Nov 3, 2010

You did the right thing by calling us.


Yay Polliwonks is back! On behalf of comms wonks, thank you for including messaging strategy in the new thread!

TulliusCicero posted:

How likely is it to hurt the GOP in Georgia Run-offs, as it seems quite the schism is emerging?

It seems like Ossof and Warnock can pull this thing off more and more...

I would love to see an independent lefty outfit spin up some campaigns around this schism, a la Lincoln Project. I don't think it's the right thing at all for Biden's actual team to talk about, but really rich ground for a third party blast.

Pick
Jul 19, 2009

powerful beyond man's wildest imagination


Nap Ghost

ninjahedgehog posted:

So glad to see the second-best thread (after Presidentchat) in D&D return.

Have there been any long-form analysis articles yet about Fox/AP's decision to call Arizona early on election night, their reasoning behind it, and if there are any regrets about that? The Nates spent a lot of time on Twitter over the week or so post-election day talking about how it was a bad idea that just happened to be correct, but a more in-depth analysis would be fun to read.

Fox had the AP Votecast info which cable news didn't pay for and didn't have access to. Using that info, they felt safe in their projection. This was on the low end for their expected margin, but they were right for the reasons they said they would be. It wasn't "right accidentally" like a Tralf poll, it was correct because they calculated correctly based on the info that came in; the margin was within the range of winning outcomes.

Aruan
Nov 4, 2020



This isn't even the first time Fox has had controversy about early - and ultimately correct - calls (I see you Karl Rove in 2012). They just hire competent people in a single area. Murdoch is both weirdly hands on/hands off with Fox when it comes to reporting like this - and its an open question how much Murdoch vs. his children are involved in the day-to-day with Fox at this point. The bigger rumor right now though is that Fox New's days are numbered because each of the children will control 1/3rd of the company post-Murdoch death, and Lachlan is the only one interested in keeping the channel around. The other two hate it.

DynamicSloth
Jul 30, 2006

"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

ninjahedgehog posted:

So glad to see the second-best thread (after Presidentchat) in D&D return.

Have there been any long-form analysis articles yet about Fox/AP's decision to call Arizona early on election night, their reasoning behind it, and if there are any regrets about that? The Nates spent a lot of time on Twitter over the week or so post-election day talking about how it was a bad idea that just happened to be correct, but a more in-depth analysis would be fun to read.

All the decision desks were correct about all the calls they made (as they almost always are), the Nates and various other twitter pundits blow calls all the time, so the fact they were tittering about second guessing information they had no access to really should only make you question why anyone listens to those pundits in the first place.

Aruan
Nov 4, 2020



DynamicSloth posted:

All the decision desks were correct about all the calls they made (as they almost always are), the Nates and various other twitter pundits blow calls all the time, so the fact they were tittering about second guessing information they had no access to really should only make you question why anyone listens to those pundits in the first place.

I mean, they also were specifically told by Twitter that their accounts would be suspended if they called things before AP, which is insane bullshit.

Pick
Jul 19, 2009

powerful beyond man's wildest imagination


Nap Ghost

Aruan posted:

I mean, they also were specifically told by Twitter that their accounts would be suspended if they called things before AP, which is insane bullshit.

Actually, there were eight sources that they could cite. However, one of the eight was also Fox, which just uses the associated press's stance.

AtomikKrab
Jul 17, 2010

Keep on GOP rolling rolling rolling rolling.


I honestly put my faith in the Fox News election calling desk. They do real solid work... unlike the rest of fox.

DTurtle
Apr 10, 2011


Very nice to see this thread back! It was terrific - and I hope we can maintain a good level of discourse.

Talking about 2022, I found the column by Paul Krugman in the NY Times as quite a good take:

Paul Krugman posted:

The economic outlook is probably brighter than you think.

The next few months are going to be incredibly grim. The pandemic is exploding, but Donald Trump is tweeting while America burns. His officials, unwilling to admit that he lost the election, are refusing even to share coronavirus data with the Biden team.

As a result, many preventable deaths will occur before a vaccine’s widespread distribution. And the economy will take a hit, too; travel is declining, an early indicator of a slowdown in job growth and possibly even a return to job losses as virus fears cause consumers to hunker down again.

But a vaccine is coming. Nobody is sure which of the promising candidates will prevail, or when they’ll be widely available. But it’s a good guess that we’ll get this pandemic under control at some point next year.

And it’s also a good bet that when we do the economy will come roaring back.

OK, this is not the consensus view. Most economic forecasters appear to be quite pessimistic; they expect a long, sluggish recovery that will take years to bring us back to anything resembling full employment. They worry a lot about long-term “scarring” from unemployment and closed businesses. And they could be right.

But my sense is that many analysts have overlearned the lessons from the 2008 financial crisis, which was indeed followed by years of depressed employment, defying the predictions of economists who expected the kind of “V-shaped” recovery the economy experienced after earlier deep slumps. For what it’s worth, I was among those who dissented back then, arguing that this was a different kind of recession, and that recovery would take a long time.

And here’s the thing: The same logic that predicted sluggish recovery from the last big slump points to a much faster recovery this time around — again, once the pandemic is under control.

What held recovery back after 2008? Most obviously, the bursting of the housing bubble left households with high levels of debt and greatly weakened balance sheets that took years to recover.

This time, however, households entered the pandemic slump with much lower debt. Net worth took a brief hit but quickly recovered. And there’s probably a lot of pent-up demand: Americans who remained employed did a huge amount of saving in quarantine, accumulating a lot of liquid assets.

All of this suggests to me that spending will surge once the pandemic subsides and people feel safe to go out and about, just as spending surged in 1982 when the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates. And this in turn suggests that Joe Biden will eventually preside over a soaring, “morning in America”-type recovery.


Which brings me to the politics. How should Biden play the good economic news if and when it comes?

First of all, he should celebrate it. I don’t expect Biden to engage in Trump-like boasting; he’s not that kind of guy, and his economics team will be composed of people who care about their professional reputations, not the quacks and hacks who populate the current administration. But he can highlight the good news, and point out how it refutes claims that progressive policies somehow prevent prosperity.

Also, Biden and his surrogates shouldn’t hesitate to call out Republicans, both in Washington and in state governments, when they try to sabotage the economy — which, of course, they will. I won’t even be surprised if we see G.O.P. efforts to impede the wide distribution of a vaccine.

What, do you think there are some lines a party refusing to cooperate with the incoming administration — and, in fact, still trying to steal the election — won’t cross?

Finally, while Biden should make the most of good economic news, he should try to build on success, not rest on his laurels. Short-term booms are no guarantee of longer-term prosperity. Despite the rapid recovery of 1982-1984, the typical American worker earned less, adjusted for inflation, at the end of Reagan’s presidency in 1989 than in 1979.

And while I’m optimistic about the immediate outlook for a post-vaccine economy, we’ll still need to invest on a large scale to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, improve the condition of America’s families (especially children) and, above all, head off catastrophic climate change.

So even if I’m right about the prospects for a Biden boom, the political benefits of that boom shouldn’t be cause for complacency; they should be harnessed in the service of fixing America for the long run.

And the fact that Biden may be able to do that is reason for hope.

Those of us worried about the future were relieved to see Trump defeated (even though it’s possible he’ll have to be removed forcibly from the White House), but bitterly disappointed by the failure of the expected blue wave to materialize down-ballot.

If I’m right, however, the peculiar nature of the coronavirus slump may give Democrats another big political opportunity. There’s a pretty good chance that they’ll be able to run in the 2022 midterms as the party that brought the nation and the economy back from the depths of Covid despond. And they should seize that opportunity, not just for their own sake, but for the sake of the nation and the world.
Emphasis mine

Pick
Jul 19, 2009

powerful beyond man's wildest imagination


Nap Ghost

I don't often agree with him, but I do agree Americans are going to go apeshit when the vaccine is out and spend like mad. The personal savings rate went way up this year, there are genuinely a lot of people who have a lot more liquid assets than they normally do, and are absolutely roaring to spend them.

It's one reason I'm not convinced normal logic applies to 2022 house races.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003
crazy people don't like me

So I used to do an A/T thread about my time doing campaigns. I've run a few state senate campaigns, been an organizer for a few federal campaigns, and do policy work for a living. Happy to ask questions here if people have internal campaign operation questions.

Mellow Seas
Oct 9, 2012




The possibility for Biden to pump out stimulus, distribute the vaccine and ride high growth to a strong 2022 election is so high that it almost paradoxically makes me more concerned, because the incentive for Republicans to screw things up is so high, either by withholding stimulus or spreading vaccine paranoia or whatever they choose to do. God drat are the special elections important.

Despite the trends of recent midterms, 2022 is not predestined to be a bad election for Democrats. When we look at 2010, we need to remember that it wasn't just about backlash to Obamacare; U3 was still at 9.8%. The recession had been over for over a year but the economy was still terrible, and even though it wasn't reasonable to blame Democrats or Obama for it, considering the conditions when they took over, many people were still ready to lash out at any incumbent in their sights. I don't know if we're going to have a full-on feel-good Morning in America but it's likely going to be a hell of a lot closer to that than it will be to 2010.

Pick
Jul 19, 2009

powerful beyond man's wildest imagination


Nap Ghost

Mooseontheloose posted:

So I used to do an A/T thread about my time doing campaigns. I've run a few state senate campaigns, been an organizer for a few federal campaigns, and do policy work for a living. Happy to ask questions here if people have internal campaign operation questions.

Oh sweet! Any initial insights we might find interesting? 🐸

Pick
Jul 19, 2009

powerful beyond man's wildest imagination


Nap Ghost

Confirmed statements (as tweets?)

https://twitter.com/jakejsullivan/s...9544461316?s=21

https://twitter.com/alimayorkas/sta...4908250115?s=21

https://twitter.com/johnkerry/statu...2579312640?s=21

https://twitter.com/lindat_g/status...7877920771?s=21

https://twitter.com/transition46/st...7988690946?s=21

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003
crazy people don't like me

Pick posted:

Oh sweet! Any initial insights we might find interesting? 🐸

I don't know if its me spending too much time in D&D but I find the depiction of most (democratic anyways) politicians cartoonish. They aren't sitting in some campaign bunker going MUHAHA I am going enforce the whims of capital for I AM AGAINST THE PROLETEARIATE. They are human people who are influenced by the people and staff around them.

Extending this to campaigns, politicians have people they trust to give advice and if its working for them, they are loath to change because well they are getting elected. There is a generational shift much like baseball in numbers and analytics vs. this is how we've been doing it for decades and its what works damnit. I had a candidate take a full half page ad in a local newspaper and waste about $3000 because that's what he has always done and I told him I didn't see the point since its super untargeted for such a small race.

I also believe there are lots of old Irish/Italian/White politicians in cities in suburbs that are a few years away from being ousted because their communities are passing them by but that is more a function of where I live.

I guess my biggest insight is that if you know where to look to get data, you can create some good insights for yourself about local races. Election data is super important for you to understand a district and possible outcomes and for your own advocacy.

Pick
Jul 19, 2009

powerful beyond man's wildest imagination


Nap Ghost

Yellen tapped for treasury.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Aruan
Nov 4, 2020



I messaged Ralph about this, but I think an excellent rule for this thread (in contrast to wider D&D) is that if you post something that turns out to be very wrong, i.e. a terrible prediction about what may or may not happen, its ok for people to call you out for that. Let's add at least the tiniest bit of stakes to making predictions.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply