The Biden Presidency

[Aridas]

Minnesota 5th
Biden: 328,764. 80%
Omar: 255, 920. 64%

Michigan 13th
Rashida Tliab 223,205. 78.1%
Biden:
Can't find precisely Biden's number in the 13th, but I see indications he outperformed Tliab by about 5 points.

Makes me a bit curious about how many of those extra votes for Biden were from Republicans doing a split ticket... and Democrats doing a split ticket.

 

[zorro99]

Deleted

 

[acbytesla]

Makes me a bit curious about how many of those extra votes for Biden were from Republicans doing a split ticket... and Democrats doing a split ticket.

Probably the latter.

Both districts are heavily Democratic. This is the result of gerrymandering which deliberately attempts to give Democrats huge majorities in a few districts so the GOP can get small majorities in many districts.

 

[pgwenthold]

Wasserman is good. This was super close to his ballpark figure he made more than a week ago.

Look up my predictions from earlier that same day on this forum.

The only place I missed is I expected Trump to get to 74.5ish

 

[Aridas]

Probably the latter.

Both districts are heavily Democratic. This is the result of gerrymandering which deliberately attempts to give Democrats huge majorities in a few districts so the GOP can get small majorities in many districts.

Which... likely means that "moderates," as a group, were likely far less likely to have actually delivered for the Democratic Party there.

The sentiment of "Shut up and vote for us, because we won't vote for you" in action, in other words. Perhaps that's why they make so much noise about trying to attribute that sentiment to progressives.

 

[acbytesla]

Look up my predictions from earlier that same day on this forum.

The only place I missed is I expected Trump to get to 74.5ish

Kudos.

I remember thinking that as numbers were updating only a few thousands at a time that there is no way there were this many votes left.

 

[acbytesla]

Which... likely means that "moderates," as a group, were likely far less likely to have actually delivered for the Democratic Party there.

The sentiment of "Shut up and vote for us, because we won't vote for you" in action, in other words. Perhaps that's why they make so much noise about trying to attribute that sentiment to progressives.

You can't just use those two districts to come to that conclusion.

 

[Aridas]

You can't just use those two districts to come to that conclusion.

Of course. However, after listening to the "moderates" going after, for example, Bernie Bros from 2015 on (despite them being a relatively small minority of the problem at any point, albeit very much amplified by Republicans and "moderates") and trying to blame progressives for not pulling their weight all along, really, it does get more than a little tiresome. Especially when it seems like the arguments end up being nothing more than self-serving. I've seen "Shame on you for not backing us up!" at the same friggin' time as "Vote for moderates because moderates aren't likely to back you up!" far too many times from "moderates," I think.

I'm not even remotely a Bernie Bro, to be clear, but it's not like I'm blind and deaf.

 

[acbytesla]

Of course. However, after listening to the "moderates" going after, for example, Bernie Bros from 2015 on (despite them being a relatively small minority of the problem at any point, albeit very much amplified by Republicans and "moderates") and trying to blame progressives for not pulling their weight all along, really, it does get more than a little tiresome. Especially when it seems like the arguments end up being nothing more than self-serving. I've seen "Shame on you for not backing us up!" at the same friggin' time as "Vote for moderates because moderates aren't likely to back you up!" far too many times from "moderates," I think.

I'm not even remotely a Bernie Bro, to be clear, but it's not like I'm blind and deaf.

I think it's a mistake to say that progressive voters didn't come out in force for Biden. They absolutely did. But it took a coalition of both progressives and moderates to win. Especially in the battleground states.

I'm however afraid that progressives are not going to be happy with Biden. They'll think he is a traitor, when in reality he's a pragmatist. I'm a moderate to liberal Democrat. And the one thing I hate with liberals are their purity tests. Especially when the tests are never going to get through Congress.

 

[Aridas]

I think it's a mistake to say that progressive voters didn't come out in force for Biden. They absolutely did. But it took a coalition of both progressives and moderates to win. Especially in the battleground states.

Sure. To poke at what originated this little discussion, though, wareyin would be far more likely to dispute that than I, given the nature of how wareyin's been trying hard to cut all credit for the work done by progressives out of the picture completely.

I'm however afraid that progressives are not going to be happy with Biden. They'll think he is a traitor,

Traitor? That's making a couple questionable assumptions, I think. Progressives not all being wildly and blindly enthusiastic about what's expected to come and trying to fight to move things closer to where we think they need to be? That, on the other hand, is something of a given.

when in reality he's a pragmatist. I'm a moderate to liberal Democrat. And the one thing I hate with liberals are their purity tests. Especially when the tests are never going to get through Congress.

To some degree, I agree with you, in that sometimes, things get carried too far. On the other hand, having standards that one actually abides by tends to be of very great value, too, in a larger sense than immediate political points. I'm certainly in favor of working to have more reasonable polite discussion about where the standards actually should be, of course, when such can be done in good faith.

 

[acbytesla]

Sure. To poke at what originated this little discussion, though, wareyin would be far more likely to dispute that than I, given the nature of how wareyin's been trying hard to cut all credit for the work done by progressives out of the picture completely.

Traitor? That's making a couple questionable assumptions, I think. Progressives not all being wildly and blindly enthusiastic about what's expected to come and trying to fight to move things closer to where we think they need to be? That, on the other hand, is something of a given.

To some degree, I agree with you, in that sometimes, things get carried too far. On the other hand, having standards that one actually abides by tends to be of very great value, too, in a larger sense than immediate political points. I'm certainly in favor of working to have more reasonable polite discussion about where the standards actually should be, of course, when such can be done in good faith.

I was making generalizations. I know that. I worked for almost 2 years for the Washington State Democratic Party so I've been around.

I agree with the progressive wing of the party that often Democratic leaders need to be bolder with their initiatives. They need to start out further left if only to push the starting place for negotiating. My father who was a labor leader described it as shooting for the moon so you could hit the top of the barn.

I thought the "defund the police' movement to be moronic. Not that their goals weren't right but the rhetoric and some of the policy proposals were self defeating. I absolutely believe that backfired big time against the Democrats. Trump pushed that and the riots helped the GOP big time.

 

[Aridas]

I thought the "defund the police' movement to be moronic.

As a slogan, it was moronic, I'll agree with you there.

Not that their goals weren't right but the rhetoric and some of the policy proposals were self defeating. I absolutely believe that backfired big time against the Democrats. Trump pushed that and the riots helped the GOP big time.

Minor correction. The perception of riots, more than the riots themselves, even if the "riots" happened to be pretty much one-sided, unjustified attacks by police. Both right-wing media and the more actually fact-based corporate media played that up significantly for profits, as usual, in keeping with political bias for the right-wing and the sensationalist bias for corporate media.

 

[acbytesla]

As a slogan, it was moronic, I'll agree with you there.

Minor correction. The perception of riots, more than the riots themselves, even if the "riots" happened to be pretty much one-sided, unjustified attacks by police. Both right-wing media and the more actually fact-based corporate media played that up significantly for profits, as usual, in keeping with political bias for the right-wing and the sensationalist bias for corporate media.

Perception is reality...at least in politics. I know what was happening. I know the violence and the riots were not this overwhelming mess.

But that doesn't matter. The images and rhetoric worked against them. I know that most Americans generally respect the police. Turning them into monsters was bound to backfire. It's one thing to push making the police to care about serving the public then trying to be some occupying army. It's another portraying them as villains.

This was a trap and we fell right into it.

 

[Delvo]

I've wondered for months what exactly makes the corporatists' dupes & Bidenistas keep behaving so reprehensibly (while claiming that "Bernie Bros" are the poorly behaved ones). Their symptoms are just so weirdly severe, and the narrow obsession with Bernie months & months later is so obscure, that it's a challenge to try to even describe, nevermind explaining it, without sounding like you're talking about brain damage or mental illness.

 

[acbytesla]

I've wondered for months what exactly makes the corporatists' dupes & Bidenistas keep behaving so reprehensibly (while claiming that "Bernie Bros" are the poorly behaved ones). Their symptoms are just so weirdly severe, and the narrow obsession with Bernie months & months later is so obscure, that it's a challenge to try to even describe, nevermind explaining it, without sounding like you're talking about brain damage or mental illness.

I think that's simplistic. What I saw about the Bernie Brothers of 2016 was this all or nothing attitude. That even though Trump was a right wing monster, they were willing to toss the much further left Hillary Clinton into the dumpster.

Now I always doubted and still do doubt that someone who genuinely supported Bernie would ever think that Trump was a better alternative than Hillary. They certainly didn't take that attitude with Biden in 2020.

I don't know where that leaves us. Bernie didn't hesitate for a second in supporting Biden whereas his support of Hillary never struck me as very genuine. Maybe it's just me.

 

[Venom]

Sanders is a pragmatist when the chips are down. I think his career has shown that. And he's never felt the urgency he does now. And I'm glad he thinks that way. He was very quick to back Biden.

But it is amusing and a bit frustrating to see people quick to view him as the other side of the coin to Donald Trump.

 

[SezMe]

SuburbanTurkey, I've seen numerous posts by you since I posted my questions for you. I'm sure your lack of a respond is merely an oversight so I'll repeat my questions so you don't have to go looking for them.

What offices have you run for? What position do you hold in the Democratic Party? What lobbying efforts have you organized and pursued? How many times have you visited you political representatives offices to present petitions with thousands upon thousands of signatures?

 

[wareyin]

Oooooo. Considered. Yeah, that's totally proof that progressives don't have reason for concern with the picks already announced, individually and overall, and the likely consequences of such. Seriously, take a few steps back and actually consider why you're trying to piss all over legitimate concerns using such... "wonderful" arguments.

This whole line of argument began when a couple of progs were complaining about other people who are being "considered" and claiming it was insulting to progs. Why is it that consideration of X is worthy of complaints, but the same consideration of Y is berated as doing nothing? More of the same demands for extra special treatment because you got 75% of what you wanted instead of -100% and clearly that's basically the same?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

SuburbanTurkey, I've seen numerous posts by you since I posted my questions for you. I'm sure your lack of a respond is merely an oversight so I'll repeat my questions so you don't have to go looking for them.

I assumed you meant it as flippant nonsense, at least that's how I read it. Apologies as it seems this was not the case.

I have not run for any office, though I have volunteered for several individual candidates I have found compelling. I'm of the opinion that lobbying is ineffective unless it comes with a lot of money attached, which I am not able to personally fund, so I have done no lobbying of politicians. I have also participated in protests around matters of public interest throughout the summer.

I'm curious that you choose lobbying and petition gathering as some standard of civic participation, when there is abundant evidence that neither of these are effective in shaping public policy. Change.org petitions are political theatre. Lobbying without the ability to sign a big check is likewise pointless.

I'm sure there's more I could be doing to be involved in the political process, but I fail to see how that makes my displeasure with political leaders any less valid.

If you have some point you're trying to make, kindly make it quickly. I don't see how such personalized quibbling is really on topic.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I was making generalizations. I know that. I worked for almost 2 years for the Washington State Democratic Party so I've been around.

I agree with the progressive wing of the party that often Democratic leaders need to be bolder with their initiatives. They need to start out further left if only to push the starting place for negotiating. My father who was a labor leader described it as shooting for the moon so you could hit the top of the barn.

I thought the "defund the police' movement to be moronic. Not that their goals weren't right but the rhetoric and some of the policy proposals were self defeating. I absolutely believe that backfired big time against the Democrats. Trump pushed that and the riots helped the GOP big time.

I see this repeated a lot, but is there actually evidence of this?

It's pretty clear that some of these movements don't enjoy majority support, but has the summer of protest and unrest actually hurt Democrats? Is there some metric, besides the moaning of losing candidates, that this actually hurt the 2020 election results for Democrats? The sustained, intense grassroots effort to focus on racial injustice remains popular among Democrats, especially black Democrats. Republicans, and especially white people, don't care for it. Big surprise there.

There is ample evidence that there was a massive spike in voter enrollment right around the start of the George Floyd protests across the nation. Increased voter participation generally favors Democrats.

TargetSmart, a Democratic political data firm, analyzed local election officials' registration data against their voter file and found a surge of Democratic and unaffiliated voter registrations in June, amid the large Black Lives Matter protests across the country.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/voter-registration-surged-during-blm-protests-study-finds-n1236331

I'm not asserting one way or the other that these protests and unrest hurt or helped Democrats, but it seems reasonable to demand proof of these claims mostly coming from centrist pundits who have ample motivation to blame progressives for their woes.

not enough work has been done to determine why this election went well for Biden but not for down-ticket Democrats. Perhaps we'll never really know. But I remain deeply skeptical of the pundits rushing to claim that progressives or BLM protests were the cause bad election results.

A related point, involving the same ambiguities. Is there any evidence that pandering to never-Trump Republicans and moderate conservatives actually paid off? Kasich's endorsement seems to have done nothing to stop Ohio from going to Trump, and the Lincoln Project seems to have only accomplished funneling money to their ghoulish founders. Does trying to woo squish conservatives actually work, and is it worth it if it means undercutting enthusiasm among the Democratic base? What was more important this election, converting conservatives to Biden or boosting turnout among the base?