|
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.
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
I think it is correct to say that AOC getting media attention for taking far left opinions does have some blowback on other, non-AOC, non-leftist reps due to an increasingly homogeneous and national media coverage, particularly in newspapers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2020 22:07
|
|
|
Omar's results are important because she's been held up as an example of how amazing progressive candidates perform, but now when we look at the numbers she performed quite poorly (even if she won). Omar's results show that progressive are less popular than centrist candidates in high turnout elections, even in safe D districts. Safe D districts have the margin to weather those defections so its ok to run these candidates (because they do better things for their constituents), but it shows that progressives aren't some silver bullet to always win elections like people claim here. Its depressing. Trying to artificially inflate her margin by giving her credit for being the target of hysterical Trump propaganda or because she's a woman is meaningless - both because Biden was also the target of a ton of extremely negative messaging which didn't seem to matter, and also she had those some negatives in 2018 and she did worse in 2020 - and much worse compared to the generic D candidate, particularly one in a safe D district. Most candidates at least held their vote totals from 2018 even if their vote share shrunk - but both her raw vote total and share shrunk. The bigger conclusion is that in a high turnout election the newly activated voters aren't progressives.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Re: the Ilhan Omar margins. It makes sense to me that if Trump turned out low propensity R voters nation-wide, this would include areas where normally they wouldn't vote because their vote usually doesn't matter. In those areas in particular you would especially get Rs splitting their ticket as a rejection of Trump, but voting Republican downballot. If Trump is turning out low propensity voters those voters would be voting for Trump, not Biden, which would be reflected in Biden's margin, not Omar's. Instead, this district shows Biden turning out new voters. Omar's results show two things: 1. she lost voters who voted for her in 2016 (because her vote total shrank), and 2. newly turned out voters split their tickets between Biden/whoever else. She still won, which is good, but this should be a huge red flag for any electoral strategy that relies on newly turned out voters to replace moderate likely voters who won't support progressive candidates, because it suggests that non-voters are also moderates, even in extremely safe Democratic urban districts, which is where historically progressive candidates are most successful (see: AOC). Before this election there were two widely accepted truths: 1. that in a high turnout election Democrats would always win because most non-voters tilt Democrat; 2. that non-voters are also more likely to be progressives, because the way to get them to vote is to offer them material benefits, which progressive candidates are more willing to do (i.e. M4A, UBI), which is what would convince them to vote - particularly in urban districts, because these are the districts that are most heavily Democratic, and therefore have the highest numbers of young voters who self-select into these districts and are far more progressive than older voters. This elections has shown that both these truths are myths. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Nov 25, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 16:37
|
|
|
The best "positive" spin you can put on Omar's result is that it suggests that you should run as many progressive candidates as possible in heavy Democratic districts during non-Presidential elections because lower turnout favors those candidates and that hopefully an incumbent advantage outweighs potential defections (along with district partisan lean) during the Presidential year election.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:37,000 people in MN 5th District voted for the Legal Marijuana Now candidate, which is ~30% of what the Republican Candidate got. Assuming most Republicans and Democrats didn't split ticket, most of those Weed Party voters voted for Biden in the presidential race. I can't find the 2016 results general election results for the district, but in 2016 the "Legal Marijuana Now" candidate got 8.5% of votes - roughly 31,000. In that election Ellison won 69.1 to 22.3, which would suggest that no, the Legal Marijuana Now candidate is not exclusively pulling Biden votes from Omar. Comparing 2016 to 2020, the biggest shift was more votes for the Republican - who jumped 3%. (And yes, I know Omar wasn't on the ballot in 2016, but we're trying to establish a partisan baseline in the district and see how Omar as a candidate changes that).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:I'm having trouble finding presidential votes breakdown by congressional district and not county, if somebody has a good link. Except the weed candidate got similar numbers of votes when Ellison ran in 2016 (there was no weed candidate in 2014), which would suggest even putting aside the Presidential results, something shifted - and that the weed candidate isn't getting new voters. The weed candidate got 37,000 votes in 2020 and 31,000 votes in 2016 - while the Republican candidate got 102,000 votes in 2020 and 80,000 in 2020. Between 2016 and 2020 Ilhan (as the Democratic candidate in general) gained 5,000 votes - similar to the weed candidate - and the Republican gained 22,000. My takeaway is that high turnout hurt Omar, because the new voters were splitting tickets. She did much better in a low turnout election - she actually beat Ellison's 2014 margin in 2018, when both were in 2 party races (no weed candidate). The bigger takeaway is that newly activated voters in the 2020 election, even in extremely Democratic, urban districts, are not progressives. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Nov 25, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
I'll add this: I personally find these results deeply depressing. But, there were two things taken as gospel in this thread right after the election: 1. Progressive candidates did better than Biden because they used digital ads. How many times was that stupid DSA graphic linked here to show how amazing progressive candidates did? Or comments about how bad the DNC is at campaigning in compared to AOC et al.? 2. Ilhan Omar's result in particular was a sign of how receptive voters are to progressive ideas and how she, personally, saved Minnesota because she relied on door knocking when Biden's campaign didn't. The data suggests both these things are wrong. Maybe Omar did turn out voters with door knocking - but those voters didn't vote for her, they split their tickets and supported Biden (which is good for the national party) and voted against her. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Nov 25, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 17:06
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:Is there a map showing election results per congressional district? I can only find Minnesota stuff by county or polling location (which is a subgroup of county), not House district. I think Wasserman has some data we don't, or knows how the polling locations make up the House districts.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 17:09
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Except that the guy who took a huge chunk of her vote share ran on stuff that is decidedly anti-centrist. There are takes to take from this that might raise concern but this particular take is dishonest as hell. The Republican candidate got the biggest vote change from 2016 to 2020, which is the last time there was a weed candidate on the ballot. As I posted.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:Honestly, I'm not sure but I would imagine you would get resistance like you did for the Silver Line throughout Loudon and Fairfax counties, but nearly as much whining as you get from people in Bethesda. As an aside, the Georgetown Metro access story is actually an urban legend. Most of these decisions were made in the late 60s/early 70s, and Georgetown then was not Georgetown today. Here's an interview with a researcher about it: https://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows...f%20the%20city. quote:So, there certainly was a consideration of a Metro stop. I have maps from 1963, in particular, when planners had graph paper and crayons, essentially, and could think about anything they wanted to do. But when I talked to the planners -- I did about several dozen interviews for my book in the 1990s -- they told me that their considerations for Metro were not mostly based on community opposition, at that point, so much as trying to serve commuting as best they could.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
I don't see the benefit to Mitch to going full on obstructionism. I don't think it'll have that much of an impact in terms of actually damaging the Biden's administration to get things done (particularly because we now have the Trump precedent of "just appoint them illegally and dare the courts to stop you"), and many of the middle-of-the-road nominations are widely approved of in the business Republican circles which give Mitch his marching orders. I do think we'll see a couple hot button candidates a la DeVos. I think Mitch makes way more political hay by dialing in on a few candidates (i.e. Neera Tanden) and screaming about how outrageous they are then blocking everyone, including super milquetoast qualified people that its hard to generate outrage about.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This is incredibly naive, in my opinion. What extra benefit does Mitch get from going full obstructionism instead of just focusing on 1-2 of the most controversial nominees and having the caucus scream about them for months that risks the downside of... actually pissing people off about a fundamental abrogation of responsibility (a la the government shutdowns).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:Not that I think Mitch will obstruct 100% necessarily, but he and the GOP at large have never suffered a consequence for doing so 2013 and 2018-2019 government shutdowns (which hurt the GOP and forced them to cave). Refusing to hear any cabinet nominees is a grenade. Why risk it blowing up in your face when you can get the same political ammunition by screaming about 2-3 nominees?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:the GOP swept the senate in 2014, then took the presidency and kept both houses of congress in 2016 after stonewalling Obama's SCOTUS nominee. 2018 i'll grant you, but i think that was more of a referendum on Trump than the GOP at large (and the Dems were the ones who forced a shutdown earlier that year!). 2020 bore this out by Trump losing solidly, but the GOP doing much better than expected downballot I think there's a difference between one SCOTUS seat and all Cabinet nominees though. SCOTUS still functioned, they still heard cases, most people didn't see any practical difference. If you suddenly say "sorry, no Cabinet Secretaries for Biden" then its a much bigger level of obstruction - the closest example being the government shutdowns, which did blow up in the GOP's face. And the GOP "lost" those shutdowns not in terms of electoral success, but because they did not get their budget demands (especially in 2019). Also Trump shut the government down in 2018-2019 because of wall demands.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:1. He gets to serve red meat to the base Here's what I'm saying though: I don't think there's much 'extra' read meat to be served by obstructing every cabinet nominee vs. just a few, but with way higher risk.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
But obstructing doesn't actually stop Biden from doing anything - that's the other piece. Obstructing all of Biden's nominees will give him the pre-text needed to play legal Calvinball and just appoint acting people - as opposed to obstructing some of the nominees, which removes some of the justification for Biden just saying gently caress it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
I think the problem with approval ratings is that they're not a good gauge of electoral choice. Who cares if Trump is at 40% of 42% if he gets 48% of votes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Sure it does. I think if Trump has shown us anything its that you don't need complex legal wrangling or even electoral wins to keep the Republican base riled up, you just need to get on TV and say "Joe Biden is a socialist who wants to kill babies" and... good enough. From an electoral standpoint, Trump was a failure - Obamacare is still here, there was a middling tax cut - and... the base didn't care. They were happy because Trump said that the Democrats are terrorists. McConnell doesn't need to conduct an elaborate campaign to stop Biden from having a cabinet (which won't accomplish much in practice) to rile up his base - all he has to do is have Rand Paul get on TV and scream about EVIL DEMOCRAT BABY MURDERERS. Also, McConnell obstructs for an endgame - i.e. getting judges on courts, saving a SC seat to appoint a Republican judge, etc. He's not just obstructing to be a dick - the reason he's effective is because he carefully picks his battles to get maximum benefit (Republican, business friendly judges or tax cuts) and minimize his losses (seats, although losing the House in 2018 was bad for him). Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Dec 1, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I wouldn't count on the second part, unfortunately. CHUDs have an established history of saying that they won't turn out to vote, and then...syke! They didn’t show up in 2018. The question is “is this a midterm?” Or is it a chance to vote for Trump by proxy?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Also the first openly trans person to be elected to a state legislature anywhere in the country, so she had the added hurdle of prejudice to overcome to get elected. Danica Roem is great, but she was elected to the Virginia House, not Congress, so we're talking a race that is generally hyper-focused on local issues - and she benefited both from demographic changes (NoVA going increasingly blue) and a larger blue wave - which was helped by the Virginia GOP increasingly nominating fringe candidates who focus exclusively on social issues.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2020 20:47
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Good point and Democrats should appeal to Cuban voters especially given that Florida is a swing state. I wonder why they're failing to do that? What benefits do they get from the Republican Party? The issues that appeal to Cuban voters also alienate the rest of the party.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 23:43
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:screaming about Castro mainly don't forget lower taxes
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I find it really remarkable that anti-Cuban rhetoric still resonates so strongly two generations later. I encourage you to bring up Castro to a group of Cuban expats.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Someone who was on the board at a major defense contractor probably qualifies as a war profiteer. A war profiteer in my government? Why, I never! (He's been on the boards for 4 years.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:All the Navy people I've heard from in passing are loving horrified about what's going to happen to their bases when sea levels rise because guess where naval bases, as a rule, are located. On top of mountains?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
From what I can see, polling was fairly spot on for Democratic turnout, but missed capturing new first time Trump voters, which is consistent with the idea that these voters were largely drawn from the "distrust society" category - which we know Trump uniquely attracts, unlike past Republican candidates - and are the least likely to be polled. This group is also not uniformly distributed, and seems more common in the white, rural Midwest (which is why Georgia and North Carolina were spot on and other parts of the country wern't). The question is "is this group going to continue to vote for Republicans, or were they just voting for Trump?" and the answer is 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
the georgia results will tell us a lot - its a race between 'how much of democrats e-day turnout was anti trump vote' and 'how much of republican e-day vote was trump being on the ballot' edit: damnit, beaten, but I swear I was typing this post up!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2020 23:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think very many people on the left are arguing that one can get people who "fear cultural displacement" onboard. Rather, the belief/hope is that it will help make inroads with the ~33% of people who didn't turn out to vote this year (obviously that percentage is higher in most other elections), a group that is disproportionately non-white and working-class. We've spoken quite a bit here about the majority POC districts that swung heavily towards the right this election, but one facet of that phenomenon that probably deserves more attention is that turnout was still relatively low in such places: The problem with this belief is what we just saw happen during the 2020 election. Before November 3rd the conventional wisdom was that a high turnout election would favor Democrats because the large non-voting population tilts "progressive" (or at least progressive in the sense you're describing here - that they don't particularly care about social issues but will turn out for progressive-favored programs that offer them material benefits) - and that the appeal of a candidate like Bernie, for example, is that for every suburban voter he loses, he gains two previous non-voters, particularly in rural, white areas - which are areas Democrats are losing. Many people have embraced this belief because it support existing leftist ideological notions about what a winning coalition should "look" like - one that largely rejects the moneyed comfortable PMC (suburban) class in favor of"blue collar" working class voters who are voting in their own self-interest. That the workers are finally rising up, seizing power, and throwing off the shackles of capitalism. Sadly, 2020 has thoroughly disproven this belief. In an election where turnout was higher than it has been in decades (and probably realistically has reached the upper limit in the United States), we saw that for every newly turned 18 first time voter that Biden gained in suburban or urban areas, Trump gained a first time voter in rural areas - the exact type of first time voter you're arguing is susceptible to a progressive platform. It turns that the key to many of these voters isn't a material benefits focused progressive platform, its dialing up grievance politics even further. In this context, banking that the remaining 35% of non-voters - who chose not to vote in this, the highest turnout election in decades - are 100% progressive - and building your platform to appeal to these voters while writing off the suburbs - is a losing bet. I also want to add that the Democratic Party already objectively offers far more material benefits to voters than the Republican Party does. Every single Democratic candidate in the primary and Biden in the General ran on a platform that objectively offers important benefits to poor, rural Americans. While all of us would agree that they didn't offer enough benefits, you can't argue they didn't offer any, or that the Republicans offered more. And despite this, Democratic losses in white, rural America have accelerated. Hoping that there's a magic combination of material benefits to win over these voters also seems questionable. Edit: Now, does that mean the Democratic Party should't try to pass M4A? No, of course not - they should, because M4A would make America a better place. But that's different from thinking that M4A (or similar policies) is the One Weird Trick to winning over voters who left the party ten or twenty years ago. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Dec 22, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
Also I think another important point is that increasing polarization and a more connected country through a shared media gestalt has made the prospect of split ticket voting less and less likely, which means that candidates like Manchin - the well known local politician who manages to distance themselves from the national party - are probably a dying breed. That, combined with increasing concentration of Democratic voters is very bad news for the Democrats prospects of holding the Senate long term.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
Another key difference between the 1930s and today is the fact that in many states the party machines were so strong that the state was essentially non-competitive from the start. FDR won Texas by 76% in 1932 - including every single county - because the Republican Party was largely locked out of power.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're making some major assumptions here IMO that aren't necessarily backed up by the evidence - principally that turnout in this election reached the upper limit in the U.S. I don't see why one should take for granted that that number is ~66%. Nor do I see why one should necessarily assume that, because Trump gained among first-time voters in rural areas, the (disproportionately working class, disproportionately non-white) ~33% of VEPs who didn't turn out in 2020 wouldn't favor a Democratic candidate who speaks clearly to their material needs and wants. If the Dems want any chance of taking Texas, they're going to have to do a lot more than appeal to cities and suburbs. Voting turnout is higher than its been a hundred years. Why would you base an electoral strategy over hoping that you can beat a one-in-a-century mark, instead of focusing on the people who already vote, and even better, already vote for you? Also, when we're talking about rural America, we're really talking about white rural America - overall, rural areas are 80% white - and roughly 22% more white than cities. And many states are even more white then the already more white rural averages: for example two of the states most referenced in these discussions are West Virginia (92% white) and Iowa (91% white). Texas is an interesting case. While rural Texas is less white than average, in 2010, 84.7% of Texans lived in urban or suburban areas (I can't find more recent data, but I imagine that that number has only increased over the last decade). We've talked a lot about Hispanic voters in small, rural border counties, but their numbers are insignificant compared to the large urban and suburban areas. The key to flipping Texas is how do you win over voters in urban and suburban areas and how do you increase turnout in these areas, not the rural counties. But that's not a discussion about rural voters, its a discussion about urban and suburban non-voters, which is distinct - and probably what we should be talking about, since I would argue that disproportionately white rural areas should not be the first focus of limited campaign resources. Now on that subject, where activating non-voting non-white voters is probably most important is in two areas: Democratic primaries in heavily Democratic districts where your non-voting population could tilt the scales towards a more progressive candidate, and helping break a gerrymander later in a redistricting cycle due to demographic drift/change. But that's not a national strategy. Edit: Actually, now that I think about this post, I think talking about the needs non-voting urban and suburban voters is a super interesting topic and I don't think we've ever discussed it here. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Dec 23, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
I know I'm talking to myself, but I actually was somewhat surprised by the Texas urban/rural split, and I think its indicative a fact that many of us have internalized a narrative that rural America is this big, important voting bloc, the bastion of the working class, and that their votes are deciding election results - and that doesn't seem to be true anymore. Instead of talking about the needs fo this small bloc of largely white voters, we should be talking about the needs of poor, non-voting urban and suburban residents - and I would bet these needs are pretty different. One example that springs to mind is housing costs. I think this has especially important implications for candidate platforms.: Bernie Sanders, for example, spent a lot of time talking about bringing job opportunities to rural America - but not nearly as much time talking about his housing plan. Did Biden ever spend significant time focusing on his housing plan, which offers direct material benefits to these voters?quote:As President, Joe Biden will invest $640 billion over 10 years so every American has access to housing that is affordable, stable, safe and healthy, accessible, energy efficient and resilient, and located near good schools and with a reasonable commute to their jobs. Biden will do this by: Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Dec 23, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
Also, about direct promises for material benefits: https://twitter.com/ReverendWarnock/status/1341519022706323457
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:do you think something like senate reform is possible in the next twenty years given those trends? Moreso admitting more states.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2020 01:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the specific language is no amendment may deprive a state of its "equal sufferage" in the senate, which now that i look at it again can be argued to exclude zero admit every tiny pacific territory as long as they have no republican voters 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
The larger point is that there's only so much space and time for messaging, and Democratic candidates (as well as Democratic strategics and even amateur political commenters talking on forums) target quite a bit of their messaging and discussion - both in public statements and policy platforms - towards an ever-shrinking rural population which is disproportionately white and Republican. Recognizing this is important when we're talking about appealing to non-voters because there are far fewer rural non-voters - and especially POC rural non-voters - than there are urban and suburban non-voters, because most people live in the suburbs or in cities. One challenge to this is that this flies in the face of traditional leftist theory, which casts the rural population as key participants in a workers revolution, which might've been true in 1930 or 1950, but isn't true today. Instead, we have a large, flexible working class which are mostly living and working in cities and suburbs. If you're trying to figure out how to flip Texas, for example, this is the group you should be targeting, and we need to figure out what policies are most appealing to these voters (and, specific to this conversation, urban and suburban POC non-voters). Some of these policies might overlap with those that appeal to rural voters, but I do think there are significant differences - one I mentioned up thread is housing access. (I will add this is in the context of winning elections, not in lager policy. I do not think rural voters - even Republican rural voters - should be abandoned, and significant social policies that benefit urban and suburban poor POC voters can help rural voters too. But I do think its a mistake to think that the needs of rural voters are exactly the same as urban and suburban voters, and if I had to pick one group to appeal to it would be urban and suburban voters every single time, because there are 9 of them for every 1 rural voter.) Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Dec 23, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
its not so much "putting checks on the party in power", its that in some ways being in power is a disadvantage - inasmuch as people generally blame you for bad things that have happened. this is less true, today, though, because the parties are so polarized - republicans blame democrats even if they control all three houses. the republicans got wiped out in 2018 because people didn't like trump, and in hind sight there is a segment of 'trump not republican' voters who didn't show up. its not a truism, and even if it was it was nothing to do with georgia, because the democrats aren't in power yet. in this case it would be 'voters don't like when one party controls both houses of congress and the presidency' - but it seems they don't care, considering the democrats got a trifecta out of 2008 and the republicans got a trifecta out of 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 21:36
|
|