Jump to content

The Joe Biden Presidency Thread


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Mr. Hoopah! said:

On the subject of the Thanksgiving wars, I think I lean towards agreeing with @achilles return that ham is more important than turkey.  It's hard to **** up a ham.  It's easy to **** up a turkey.

PHzAxQ2.gif

We started brining our turkey a few years back, that was a game changer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mr. Hoopah!

    10046

  • AF89

    7025

  • WhenFalconsWin

    4543

  • Aleksandr sportolli

    4139

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Seems like rescuing dogs during lockdown is a thing around here. It happened to us this past week. This guy wandered up dirty and skinny, playing with my daughter in the front yard. After a few days o

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, HolyMoses said:

I wish I could better articulate my point about this, because I am quite clearly failing:

Nothing about my take on the Exit polling is about what should or should not be Democratic policy moving forward.  

My take is limited to the validity of the polling.  I think it is irresponsible to rely on the Exit Polling in 2020.  I'm happy to repost my rational and links to support , and to others who share my skepticism.  

And I think you have a very valid point here.  We just don’t know yet how accurate the Edison exit poll is, especially since the AP Votecast survey has very different results.  Most of the media outlets paid Edison a lot of money and want to get use out of it.  But if it’s not accurate — and it might not be — then all of the punditry is also off.

My own take is this:

First, it’s going to take several weeks or even months to figure this out.  Give it some time and don’t jump onto the early punditry that might be based on flawed data.

Second, we’re going to have to look at regional voting patterns in addition to polls, and those tend to point in several different directions.  For example, the results in Miami-Dade county suggest that the “socialism” attack MIGHT have hurt Democrats.  In other areas, the lack of enthusiasm for centrist candidates MIGHT have hurt them as well.  

In other words, there might not be a single “this is what Dems need to learn” or “this is what hurt Dems down ballot” answer.  It could be widely different problems across different regions.  

Third, I think people need to step back from making very assertive claims about what Dems need to learn.  I also think, more importantly, that even having that discussion might be misplaced considering that Biden won by a lot.  It’s weird to me that Clinton won the popular vote but very narrowly lost the electoral college vote (around 75,000 votes across three states), and that was due to a perfect storm of very unlikely events...and people were all “well Dems need to learn this lesson and that lesson and understand the other side.”. 

Now that Biden won a much, MUCH larger victory this year than Trump won, people are still out there with, “well Dems need to learn this lesson adn that lesson and understand the other side.”  It’s ridiculous.  If people were consistent they’d be pontificating about how the GOP needs to understand suburban women and why Trumpism is off-putting to them and how the GOP needs to better understand urban and city areas and so forth.  But nope, it’s always “Dems need to reflect and learn some lessons” whether the Dems lost or won big.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Andrews_31 said:

Fingers crossed, Warnock and Ossoff both win.  I can't see one winning and the other losing, but it could happen.  The election down there is about pure turnout, and the way dems can do it again down there is with focused messaging tailored to GA.  Some things (national messages) will not fly down there, and southern blacks live their lives (traditionally) more conservatively than their northern and western counterparts.

It seems like Warnock is more in line with where you want the Party to move, while Ossoff is more status quo.  

I wish Ossoff was running against Loughler and Warnock against  Perdue.  Although it might not matter.

It is frustrating that Democratic policies have not been more proactive in evening the playing field for minorities.  But it is more frustrating that Republicans, by continuing to try to tilt the field against them, don't put pressure on Democrats to do more.

Maybe the best thing the Republicans ever did for turning Georgia purple (for now) was blatantly suppress the **** out of the minority vote?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Andrews_31 said:

We've gone through this.  I've seen far too many people (Symone Sanders being one that immediately jumps out) repeatedly using what you refer to as the "inaccurate" Edison survey instead of the AP survey that you refer too.  I didn''t realize there was a difference!  The Edison survey clearly shows that the dems have major problems, even with their base (black people), that they need to fix NOW.  Honestly, 90% of the gripes have nothing to do with race!  Ignoring this data, and blaming Trump's increase (although slight) in black's voting for him on rappers is dumb and dangerous!  

I don’t think HolyMoses blamed rappers, but you’re right that others have.  The problem, though, is that you say that “ignoring this data” is dumb and dangerous.  But what if the data isn’t correct?  What if Trump did not actually increase his performance among minorities?  Then all of the prognosticating and “reflection” is what’s dumb and dangerous.  

By the way, one thing about Edison’s exit polls that most people don’t realize is that they don’t actually finalize the data until months after the election.  The reason is that some places are still counting votes and they adjust the exit polls based on those results.  Right now, Biden’ lead continues to grow and there might be some votes down in Southern California where Biden did well among hispanics that could change the final numbers.  

That’s why I keep saying that it’ll be weeks or even months before we have a clearer idea about how well the candidates did among different demographics, which makes all of this talk very premature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite all that's happened in the last 4 years, more people voted for Trump than voted for him in 2016. At what point do we endeavor to understand why that's happening?

Or are we just going to keep offering working people nothing, then call them names when they support the next authoritarian that promises to "own the libs?"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Andrews_31 said:

Fingers crossed, Warnock and Ossoff both win.  I can't see one winning and the other losing, but it could happen.  The election down there is about pure turnout, and the way dems can do it again down there is with focused messaging tailored to GA.  Some things (national messages) will not fly down there, and southern blacks live their lives (traditionally) more conservatively than their northern and western counterparts.

 

9 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

 

Second, we’re going to have to look at regional voting patterns in addition to polls, and those tend to point in several different directions.  For example, the results in Miami-Dade county suggest that the “socialism” attack MIGHT have hurt Democrats.  In other areas, the lack of enthusiasm for centrist candidates MIGHT have hurt them as well.  

In other words, there might not be a single “this is what Dems need to learn” or “this is what hurt Dems down ballot” answer.  It could be widely different problems across different regions.  

 

I think you guys are on the same page here, and I agree.  Ossoff hopefully learned his lesson from his congressional race (for a seat that was eventually taken by Landslide Lucy Bloodbath McGrath keeping things local and on message) that you can't win a local election without focusing on a local message.  He had tons of outside help before (and will again) but he needs to keep things Georgia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

Despite all that's happened in the last 4 years, more people voted for Trump than voted for him in 2016. At what point do we endeavor to understand why that's happening?

Or are we just going to keep offering working people nothing, then call them names when they support the next authoritarian that promises to "own the libs?"

 

We should understand it.  But why ignore the equally true fact that around 14 million more people voted for Biden than voted for Trump?  And Biden is on pace to win the election by around a 4% margin of victory.  And that Biden is on track to receive a higher percent of the vote share against an incumbent president than any candidate since FDR?  

In other words, why is there only finger-wagging at Dems when Biden won a decisive and somewhat historically large victory?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mr. Hoopah! said:

Good dressing >>>>> homemade mac. I'd also posit that green bean casserole is more important than the mac. Collards are an underrated thanksgiving side.

Just an awful post.

collards are required for thanksgiving.  

Greenbean casserole... that’s just random crap + green beans ewwww

that first sentence is blasphemy.

 

I am disappointed @Mr. Hoopah!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HolyMoses said:

It seems like Warnock is more in line with where you want the Party to move, while Ossoff is more status quo.  

I wish Ossoff was running against Loughler and Warnock against  Perdue.  Although it might not matter.

It is frustrating that Democratic policies have not been more proactive in evening the playing field for minorities.  But it is more frustrating that Republicans, by continuing to try to tilt the field against them, don't put pressure on Democrats to do more.

Maybe the best thing the Republicans ever did for turning Georgia purple (for now) was blatantly suppress the **** out of the minority vote?

Honestly, I don't have a problem with Ossoff at all, but he can't flip (ala "pull a Manchin") once elected.  Democrats could (and could've) done more to even the playing field if:  1)  They haven't been pulled so far to the right because Reagan broke the democratic party, 2)  They put so much effort into courting the GOP, and 3)  If more of them weren't closet Reaganites.  You have to define what you are and stand on it, just like the GOP.  Being wishy washy about it doesn't help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2020 at 11:03 AM, Mr. Hoopah! said:

Not only did it not cost them, Trump got something like 7 million MORE votes than he did in 2016 (there was higher turnout across the board), and pending the GA runoff, they didn't lose any senate seats, even incredibly unpopular, way past their "term limits" (as wfw likes to screech about) senators who are a part of the swamp like McConnell, Graham, and Collins.

And none of that happened because "there are 70 million deplorable racists in this country."  People voted for Trump and those terrible senators for other reasons, and we can't just dismiss those folks with such a broad brush.  The democrats need a whole lot of self reflection after tripping over the finish line in the presidential race only, losing some house seats, and thus far not flipping the senate during a global pandemic and recession with a deeply unpopular president and senate.

 

9 minutes ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

Despite all that's happened in the last 4 years, more people voted for Trump than voted for him in 2016. At what point do we endeavor to understand why that's happening?

Or are we just going to keep offering working people nothing, then call them names when they support the next authoritarian that promises to "own the libs?"

 

giphy.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mr. Hoopah! said:

On the subject of the Thanksgiving wars, I think I lean towards agreeing with @achilles return that ham is more important than turkey.  It's hard to **** up a ham.  It's easy to **** up a turkey.

PHzAxQ2.gif

‘Christmas Vacation’ was playing at our local theater last week. We’re going to the movies way more now than we used to back when there was a new super hero film every month.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

 The problem, though, is that you say that “ignoring this data” is dumb and dangerous.......................

I stand on that.  Not aimed at you, but becoming so reliant on data allows democrats to flat out ignore conditions on the ground, ignore their constituents, allows them to "helicopter" over voters because they REALLY have disdain for them.  Relying strictly on data is why dems talk "at" people instead of talking to them, and paint in broad strokes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

Despite all that's happened in the last 4 years, more people voted for Trump than voted for him in 2016. At what point do we endeavor to understand why that's happening?

Or are we just going to keep offering working people nothing, then call them names when they support the next authoritarian that promises to "own the libs?"

 

Probably best to never look inward and just rely on Republican whataboutisms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr. Hoopah! said:

 

giphy.gif

Just for factual accuracy, but Biden got 14 million more votes than Clinton and Dems did pick up one Senate seat even if they lose both GA senate races.  

A lot of those House seats that flipped to Rep, moreover, were very red seats that Dems picked up in off-year elections. They were always likely to flip back to the GOP.  The major areas of concern are south Florida and the Texas border area.  Beyond that, the results look fairly on par for elections like this.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Andrews_31 said:

I stand on that.  Not aimed at you, but becoming so reliant on data allows democrats to flat out ignore conditions on the ground, ignore their constituents, allows them to "helicopter over voters because they REALLY have disdain for them.  Relying strictly on data is why dems talk "at" people instead of talking to them, and paint in broad strokes.

Wait, I read your previous post to mean “Dems should rely on the Edison data”.  But here you’re saying they’re too reliant on data.  I’m confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Wait, I read your previous post to mean “Dems should rely on the Edison data”.  But here you’re saying they’re too reliant on data.  I’m confused.

You're confused because you want to be.  The Edison data clearly shows there are problems on the ground that everyone is talking about. YOU keep saying that whatever study or data YOU refer to is showing that there is not/are not problem(s).  It's as simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

We should understand it.  But why ignore the equally true fact that around 14 million more people voted for Biden than voted for Trump?  And Biden is on pace to win the election by around a 4% margin of victory.  And that Biden is on track to receive a higher percent of the vote share against an incumbent president than any candidate since FDR?  

In other words, why is there only finger-wagging at Dems when Biden won a decisive and somewhat historically large victory?

Because we all recognize why this happened. And it certainly wasn't because of any proposed policies or inspiration on Joe Biden's part. 

FDR brought in sweeping reform and progressive policies that drastically changed the lives of working people. Biden’s masterstroke seems to be another version of the ACA. That's not going to get it done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

We should understand it.  But why ignore the equally true fact that around 14 million more people voted for Biden than voted for Trump?  And Biden is on pace to win the election by around a 4% margin of victory.  And that Biden is on track to receive a higher percent of the vote share against an incumbent president than any candidate since FDR?  

In other words, why is there only finger-wagging at Dems when Biden won a decisive and somewhat historically large victory?

You know **** well why. Those were not votes for Biden. They were votes against Trump. Biden didn’t even campaign and had objectively mediocre debate performances in the primary. How many black folks have to say they put their weight behind Biden because they felt like that’s who more white people would support?

Suggesting the Dems have all this popular support so there is no lesson to be learned here is not going to play out very well imo

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Andrews_31 said:

You're confused because you want to be.  The Edison data clearly shows there are problems on the ground that everyone is talking about. YOU keep saying that whatever study or data YOU refer to is showing that there is not problem.  It's as simple as that.

I’m still confused.

People are talking about these “problems” because of the Edison data.  But there are reasons to be skeptical of that data because other data using different methods show that those problems might not be real.  

I’m saying that we have two equally reputable data sources — the Edison data that most media outlets use and the AP Votecast survey — that show different results.  So we don’t know if there is a problem or not.  There might be.  There might not be.  We should look at all of the data and figure it out.  But declaring Edison as the definitive, be-all-end-all data source is wrong, at least based on the conflicting data we have at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...