Don't forget that the women's march rallies had wider attendance than at Trump's inauguration. That plus the Democratic Party base being fired up more than it was in 2016 was indication Trump was going to potentially lose the 2020 election.
Frankly the "higher turnout benefits Democrats" mantra should have been abandoned twenty years ago. As I've had to point out many times, were that the case, Roy Barnes would have been reelected as Governor of Georgia in 2002. John Kerry would have been elected as President in 2004. Terry McAuliffe would have been elected as Governor of Virginia in 2021.
Being that Allan Lichtman's 13 keys were broken this time around, I don't think this is evidence though that his 13 keys are flawed. In fact, the methodology is a good way by which to analyze elections in order to give a bird's eye view of the national environment.
I'm here this morning to proclaim Mark27 as the God of Election Predictions.
Not only were his Presidential and Senate predictions significantly more accurate than practically anyone else here, but his further prediction that Maverick County, Texas would have the largest swing of any county in America is looking pretty close as well. I really do have to hand it to him for his foresight of the trends of the American electorate.
From now on, I'm going to stop making election predictions. Either that, or just make Mark27's predictions mine as well. And Mark, if I ever doubted you, I apologize. You were right the whole time.
I never made the downward revisions to match my popular vote guess but I should have. The only state I got wrong was one I should have never guessed to go blue in the first place: Nevada.
Obviously no need to apologize. It's just predictions that could have gone either way. For exactly two hours last night, I thought this was gonna go another way....when the national exit polls showed the top voting issue was "protecting democracy". I figured that against all odds, the Harris campaign's key message broke through in an electorate where 72% of voters were unhappy. In the end, this was even worse than I expected.
Ironically, Democrats made the same mistake this year that John McCain made in 2008. When people feel that the economy is in bad shape, trying to claim that it's actually doing well is simply electoral suicide.
Yeah I think inflation is what killed us. It's a really tough place to be in because it's near impossible to really deal with inflation in a way that doesn't hurt other aspects of the economy. The only argument Dems had is that inflation in the US is better than most other countries, but if you're a Pennsylvania or Arizona voter struggling with it, do you really care if it's worse in other countries? Doubtful.
The difference between 2012 and 2024 is that in the former election, the majority of Americans did not refuse to pretend that the 2008 Wall Street Crash never happened as well as the vastly unpopular Bush the Younger administration and War in Iraq. In 2024 though, the majority of Americans very much refused to pretend that COVID never happened. In their eyes, Orange Slob was President and the economy was good. Then Biden somehow became President and the economy sucked. No connecting the dots there. If voters did not connect the dots back in 2012, Obama would have been a one term President as Biden is.
I get flack for saying this, but COVID was never that popular of an issue with voters except liberals. Most people didn't want the lockdowns and the restrictions back then. The only friends of mine who really were obsessed with COVID. The rest didn't honestly care.
It was popular as an issue only in 2020. After it ended the following year, the majority of Americans wanted to forget it ever happened. Especially since it restricted people having lives. The realist in me thinks we won't have a complete public shutdown like that for at least one if not two generations. No matter the crisis.
I got flack back then when I said the lockdowns would eventually hurt Democrats. The financial impact was devastating to a lot of people who didn't have work from home jobs.
Indeed. Many restaurants and small businesses are not necessarily equipped with the ability to adapt to a remote work environment.
The one thing I was dismayed by was seeing mayors and governors essentially ceding authority to public health officials on COVID-19 reistrictions rather than trying to work around these issues and ensure that businesses would be able to thrive at the same time. You can't keep people on lockdowns indefinitely without there being serious anxiety, especially when it comes to economics.
The corollary is that you can't tell voters "you're wrong." If voters say the economy sucks, the economy sucks. If voters say crime is a problem, crime is a problem. Et cetera.
Absolutely correct. Democrats made the exact same mistake in 2014 when they constantly claimed that Ebola was nothing to worry about, despite most voters thinking differently.
Everyone knew that Ebola is a deadly virus, and most people didn't care about its exact methods of transmission. We should've campaigned on being a lot more aggressive in dealing with it.
Most voters don't want their politicians to try to teach them things or explain things to them. They feel that they should be the ones who are teaching the politicians. Republicans understand this. Democrats don't.
I just don't buy this; look at how much Americans are spending on vacations, luxury items, going out etc. Americans aren't getting crippled by inflation; if they were you'd see spending getting pared back.
And I do agree that the takeover of the Democratic Party, and its consultant class in particular, by highly-educated people from well-to-do backgrounds has had a major detrimental impact on the party, and its methods of communication are a substantial part of that.
Suffice to say, David Axelrod was dead on when he said he was concerned the Democratic Party was becoming to cosmopolitan and less about being the party of the working class of voters.
This is oft-said but Jon Tester didn't know how to talk to ordinary folks? Sherrod Brown? Tim Walz? We ran people who could've come out of central casting as "middle American working man Joe but with a heart of gold" and voters went "meh".
Rightly or wrongly, we are seen as the party of "coastal elites." Doesn't sit well with people who have to "believe" in the "American Dream" and who can't accept that we don't treat everyone the same. DEI is unpopular with many people precisely because it at best erases the illusion that we are an equal opportunity society, and at worst seen as giving "special treatment to the undeserved."
100 per cent. Especially with those who live in non urban/suburban and non well educated parts of the country. As a person on the Spectrum, I consider people with disabilities - including those who happen to be White heterosexual males - to be minorities. I recognize, however that many are simply uncomfortable with people with disabilities, even people with good intentions. Society simply fears "different."
I don't know if people fear "different", they just don't like the idea of people who are "different" getting special privileges that they don't get.
I've mentioned before that I stutter. However, I don't want any special treatment as a result of that, and I'll bet that a substantial percentage of those who could benefit from DEI stuff feel the same way.
I have a stuttering issue as well, particularly when I'm nervous. A major reason why "The King's Speech" is my favourite film. But yes, in the eyes of many people, accommodations are seen as "special treatment", which doesn't bode well.
As am I. I have both a BA and MA and have been gainfully employed for many years. I recognize, however that unfortunately #1. people like us are the exception, not the rule for people on the Spectrum and #2. as we are still a relatively small minority, the majority of people even in 2024 wouldn't recognize Autism if it jumped up and bit them in the butt.
I'll be honest. I didn't get diagnosed until I was in my 30s. But I'm different from many guys on the spectrum because I'm very extroverted and I like having friends.
I work out very hard to look good and attractive. I need that to compensate for my social skills weaknesses since I can't afford being fat.
I've tried to talk to other guys on the spectrum, but some of them are pathetic victims. They blame everyone else for their situation. I've had to realize that, as unfair as it may seem, I have to conform to the real world.
We don't disagree there. I have ZERO patience for people who don't at least try to better themselves and won't even try to be employed. Unless they literally can't work. And yes there IS such thing as the real world.
I'm referring to the ideal situation, not something that in the current reality is able to necessarily achieve across the board in organizations.
DEI is important to pay attention to because it shows that a company is able to not be insulated from the real world and see that it's living in the past. However, if a company is able to successfully have a no bias agenda in hiring, then it's truly inclusive and doesn't need to worry about DEI.
FYI, I am neurodivergent and know very well that the corporate world doesn't understand professionals who have ADHD, autism, etc. enough.
I would slightly disagree. The main issue is that the Democratic Party is becoming the following:
1) Too negative. Both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris ran presidential campaigns that spent more time going negative than simply trying to unite the country. President Obama had this gift of bringing the country together and was wise in both his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaign to not succumb to negativity being a central part of his campaigns.
2) Not completely aware of what's going on in the rear view mirror. It isn't just immigration and inflation but gender divide as well. Both men and women's issues need to be paid attention to.
I think you are comparing apples to watermelons in that analogy; 2008 to 2024 is insanely unfair to Harris in that analogy(and frankly, very unfair to Hillary in the other)
2008, 2016 and 2024 are indeed completely different elections in much different times.
However, it's the campaign I'm referring to, not necessarily the particular context that happened at a given presidential election year. I'm mainly pointing out that Obama was able to unite the country without becoming a divisive politician. If say he ran for his 2nd term in 2016 or 2024, I don't know for certain he would have won against Trump.
What I'm mainly looking at is how both 2016 and 2024 are similar in tone and what could have been done to improve this as well as other things in the campaign.
Thanks for the efforts of everyone who worked in the elections(no matter the outcome); personally, I am going to take a short break to reflect and recharge, and then when the time right, get back in the game
I think what we've seen in 2022 and 2024 is that Trumpy candidates who are not Trump himself just do not have the same pull. Look at how much Kari Lake is running behind Trump.
I don't get it, but it's clearly the truth. A horrible choice, but if I had to choose I'd say that Kari Lake is a significantly less odious person than Trump. And yet...
Even beyond the bias I mention in another comment, something about Trump manages to avoid getting the level of critique for his failings that basically all other politicians receive.
I think it's a combination of:
(1) His narcissism and internal delusion, which leads to him consistently denying any wrongdoing in his actions in a way that at least sounds like he believes it. And:
(2) The sheer volume of scandals and failings of his; each new one drowns out the one prior to it. Almost like an episode of the Simpsons, where Mr. Burns finds out he has so many diseases that it keeps him in good health.
Candidates like Lake and Robinson only get focus on a narrow quantity of awful traits of theirs, but the focus on those failings is consistent. How many months ago was the last serious media focus on Trump's felony convictions? How many years ago for Access Hollywood? His impeachments? What about the next two dozen stories that would have endured in isolation?
If any one of those stories had endured and not been supplanted by the next story, it would have sunk him. He generates so much garbage that none of it gets any sustained attention and in many ways it might as well not exist. He is the epitome of the "flood the zone with shit" strategy.
Not to mention candidates who make the mistake of overtly calling themselves fascists or Nazis. I maintain that Mark Robinson could very well have pulled off the win in North Carolina had the "Black Nazi" comment not come out. It's one thing to be called a Nazis or a fascist. It's another thing to actually call yourself one. He did the latter. Orange Slob has NEVER actually called himself a fascist.
He was also running against a VERY strong candidate. Governor Elect Josh Stein is the sitting Attorney General and previously served in the North Carolina Senate. He wasn't and isn't a nobody.
It's yet to be seen whether, Vance, DeSantis, Cruz and co will drive out the same MAGAs and supporters Trump did, but it's highly unlikely Trump will run again for reelection. It's already reported that Trump himself has no plans for future rallies and his age will literally catch up to him by 2028. At the very least there's a clean slate for Democrats and Republicans to work with by then.
I mean there's always the hypothetical that Trump tries to run anyway and hope that the Supreme Court or Congress backs him up. Also the dystopian hypothetical that he decides to stay in office indefinitely. Either way the point is time continues to catch up to him. This is basically demented Reagan on steroids.
We still have a Constitutional amendment procedure(if he's able to do that successfully then he should be allowed to run; just like anyone else) but I understand your thoughts
Also, at least for Trump is really the last remaining figure the GOP has who can win at the presidential level in this environment. All the other presidential candidates who ran in the primaries before Trump overwhelmingly swept all the states wouldn't have been assured to have captured the attention in the media the way Trump did at his rallies.
Not a matter of who, but rather what will stop him. Simply put Mother Nature and time. As we've been seeing at his rallies, Trump's energy has been getting lower and lower and his mental deterioration has only worsened. Trump being escorted by an aide constantly perhaps in a wheelchair or walker by 2028 would not surprise me.
Biden should never have run again to begin with. And the party needs to break its reliance on insiders and believing that raising gobs and gobs of money is the be all. It needs to stop acting as if it is afraid of its own voters and create some passion on issues like the oligarchy will now be living under. According to the exits, there were fewer voters identifying as Democrats than Republicans AND independents. That has never happened before.
Well I guess it could make sense if we were Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman circa 2010. But nobody is self-funding their Pres campaign bajillions of dollars. It was all of us that did that.
One of the fatal flaws with Harris's campaign was the lack of a clear message or theme for her presidency. This election confirmed the following: 1) voters don't care about civic issues if there isn't a direct connection to their material welfare (i.e. preserving democracy); 2) voters are responsive to vapid sloganeering and easily digestible policies/pledges.
The latter is one of Trump's core strengths ("build the wall", "stop the migrants", "lower inflation", etc). It doesn't matter if his promises aren't practical because voters don't care about the fine print. Harris had a strong platform, but you couldn't intuitively connect her to any single issue with the exception of abortion. Democrats need to ditch the nuance and get down to the level of the average voter.
Agreed with your final sentence, which is directly related to my comment above about how the takeover of the Democratic consultant class by highly-educated people from well-to-do backgrounds has harmed the Democratic Party.
What ProudNewEnglander is talking about is that Democrats are not including enough diversity in the party so as to influence the party to be more inclusive.
Getting more diversity included more participants in the Democratic Party who can speak to the struggles of the poor and working class, especially considering states like WV are increasingly out of reach for Democrats.
Everyone in the party should have a sit down with Bernie Sanders. Regardless of how you feel about him, I think we can all agree he's an extremely effective communicator. He's a master of the simple, thematically clear messaging we need to embrace.
Not saying he should be the face of the party. Just noting that irrespective of substance, the mechanics of his messaging are extremely strong. We should replicate that structure and approach, not necessarily the policy specifics.
Or is he "strong" because he has the good fortune of living in a small, rural, left leaning, homogeneous state where just about everyone looks, thinks, and acts exactly like him?
Some aspects of Bernie's messages are popular. But he would never have beaten Trump in 2016 because this just isn't a socialist country. And socialism isn't popular here. I hope that doesn't wade into the primary talk.
I don't think it's so black and white as much as you're arguing.
During the 2016 primaries, Bernie Sanders was actually respected by Trump supporters/voters and had a better ability to win them over than Clinton ever did (in fact, she didn't even bother to try in the 2016 campaign). The fact that Bernie was talking about getting money out of politics resonated with the MAGA base Trump created. Also, Bernie neither went after MAGA supporters nor called them "deplorable" like Clinton did.
The reason why Sanders and Trump got traction in the primaries was because they taped into sentiment that both the Democratic and Republican parties failed to capture for a long time - Being disillusioned by the two-party system.
Remember, Clinton lost MI, PA and WI by narrow margins. If Bernie had the Democratic Party machine and base fired up, I have no doubt he would have improved on Clinton's margins.
Bernie never faced the general election. There’s videos of him praising Marxist dictators, praising Soviet era breadlines. He’s also a “self-proclaimed Socialist”.
Trump would’ve destroyed him with red-baiting ads. They would’ve worked with devastating effectiveness.
You're correct Bernie never faced the general election but how do you know for sure Trump would have destroyed Bernie with the ads you're describing? Bernie had to deal with the same issue in the primaries and yet he was able to win states like MI and WI over Clinton. Trump also praised Vladimir Putin and Russia. Bernie could have used this against him as well.
I think you underestimate how effective Bernie was at messaging, especially at his rallies.
The US isn't a socialist country because we have a market economy along with social programs. However, it is also possible to argue that countries like those what Bernie is arguing praise for are accomplishing things that the US is not (which is what he was doing, not straight out praising dictators). Cuba may be a country overrun by institutional communism & rampant economic rationing but it has a universal healthcare system that is not for-profit and Michael Moore argued this in his Sicko documentary (and I have some occasional problems with Moore's documentaries).
Bernie's agenda is in line with FDR's agenda but I fail to see how he'd make the US more socialist (public colleges were btw tuition free before CA Governor Ronald Reagan changed things). The only way Bernie would have failed miserably is if he wouldn't have a counter offensive on the issue of socialism. Other than that, everything is all just speculative in retrospect.
I got this email from Bernie, and I felt like posting it here. I'm a socialist, but I'm so pissed at this email that I think I'm going to unsubscribe from his emails. The Democrats are always better for working people than the Republicans, and Biden and this Congress in particular did so much for working people! And it's Trump and his corrupt cabal who will really bring a Russian-style oligarchy to this country. As far as I'm concerned, Bernie has become an annoying crank, and he definitely picked the wrong time for this shit, too.
Dear Michael,
It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right.
Today, while the very rich are doing phenomenally well, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and we have more income and wealth inequality than ever before. Unbelievably, real, inflation-accounted-for weekly wages for the average American worker are actually lower now than they were 50 years ago.
Today, despite an explosion in technology and worker productivity, many young people will have a worse standard of living than their parents. And many of them worry that Artificial Intelligence and robotics will make a bad situation even worse.
Today, despite spending far more per capita than other countries, we remain the only wealthy nation not to guarantee health care to all as a human right and we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. We, alone among major countries, cannot even guarantee paid family and medical leave.
Today, despite strong opposition from a majority of Americans, we continue to spend billions funding the extremist Netanyahu government’s all out war against the Palestinian people which has led to the horrific humanitarian disaster of mass malnutrition and the starvation of thousands of children.
Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful Oligarchy which has so much economic and political power? Probably not.
In the coming weeks and months those of us concerned about grassroots democracy and economic justice need to have some very serious political discussions.
Yep. Whether we Democrats like it or not, this is a "Star Wars" country. Not a "Star Trek" country. This is a "Duck Dynasty" country. Not a "Downton Abbey" country. We forget that at our peril.
It was widely praised by conservative warriors like Newt Gingrich at the time for its simplistic good/evil message and its supposed "democratic USA vs evil Communists" theme. It wasn't until the prequels came out where it became seen and denounced as "left wing." And BTW, there is a lesson from the prequels that relates to this election, don't respond to young men the way the Jedi Council responded to Anakin Skywalker. Or else they'll seek out people like Joe Rogan and the Manosphere the way Anakin Skywalker sought out Senator Palpatine.
We started -1 on the night from redistricting (+AL-02, LA-06; - 3 NC seats).
We have currently flipped 3 seats (NY-04, NY-19, NY-22).
Rs have flipped 3 D-held seats (PA-07, PA-08, MI-07).
Still a lot of vote to count, particularly in California. Outside of CA, we have a good chance at picking up OR-05, and the D is ahead in AZ-06. Only D outside of CA currently in any danger is Peltola, who is behind by 4 but with a lot of the vote out (plus ranked choice at the end).
So I spent all of yesterday working the polls in my ward in NH. For most of the day, my job was to stand next to the voting machine to make sure that everyone could successfully insert their ballots into it.
A significant percentage of voters inserted their ballots face-up, meaning that I could see who they voted for. And while it was clear that Harris would win my ward, there were plenty of people who voted for Trump. So it was clear pretty quickly that the Republican base hadn't abandoned their support of Trump like the Selzer poll had predicted. Many of the Trump voters were men in their 20s and 30s who I hadn't seen before (in past elections), which was another bad sign. But there were a surprising number of women in their 20s and 30s who voted for Trump as well. And in the evening, there was a long line at the voter registration table, and those people were the last ones to vote, and a disproportionate number of them voted for Trump as well.
My ward had very high turnout - over 10% greater than 2020. That translated into about 250 more votes than 2020. And as it turned out, of those 250 new votes, 200 went to Trump and only 50 went to Harris. As soon as I saw, on the paper that the ballot machine was printing, that Trump got 200 more votes in my ward than in 2020, I knew that he had won the election. We should feel lucky that NH itself didn't vote for Trump - if every precinct in NH had the same swing that mine did, NH would've voted for him.
No words, of course. This election has revealed a profound moral rot within our country. Not sure what happens next, but surely nothing good.
That said, I think we may have a new frontrunner for the 2028 Democratic nomination: Ruben Gallego. Based on yesterday's results, we clearly need a nominee who 1) can appeal to Latinos, and 2) effectively communicate with "ordinary" Americans. Don't think there's anyone who better fits these criteria or has a similarly compelling background (Marine combat veteran from a swing state).
I hate what this election says about our national character and the apparent preference for shallow machismo. Unfortunately, this probably needs to inform our strategy for at least the next cycle.
Both factored into the outcome. Trump dominated polling that asked "Who do you think is a stronger leader?", even though he's a stone-cold imbecile and criminally incompetent. Sexism alone doesn't explain what happened, but it was definitely a contributing factor.
That said, I am annoyed that there wasn't more messaging on Trump's trade policy, which will turbocharge inflation and savage the economy.
Ah fair enough. I'm not in America so I've been spared from the onslaught of ads. Just doesn't seem like the inflationary fallout of his policies was a big part of the campaign narrative.
I think there was a different hierarchy of priorities for Latinos in 2016. Trump's blatant racism and hostility to immigrants were central themes of his first campaign, and there was more uncertainty over how that would affect them if he became president. While those were still themes this year, Latinos apparently feel they survived his first term and are less threatened.
I agree with this take. A lot of macho Hispanic guys who may not have ordinarily been willing to vote for a woman for President did so because they were frightened of Trump's racism.
But there's one name that throws a monkey wrench into the "macho Hispanic guys who won't vote for a woman" storyline: Claudia Scheinbaum
Then I guess you must enjoy this feeling we all have this morning about what happened last night.
But I don't. And I'm willing to put aside my personal feelings about these people in order to make a legitimate effort to get their votes. And yes, many of them are winnable voters. Obama won plenty of them. Even Biden won some of them four years ago.
Caspian calling bigots what they are on an explicitly pro-democratic election website is not the reason these people vote the way they do. He didn't say it should be our electoral strategy going forward either.
There's nothing wrong here with calling bigots out for what they are. The question is: what are we going to do about the fact that so much of our country is exactly that? How do we work around it and win?
I entreat you to re-read the first two sentences of my comment. Nobody in the electorate gives eight flying fucks what terms we use to refer to anyone while we talk on this platform. Nobody was saying "call them bigots!" is a campaign strategy or something that should be done on the trail.
not everyone who voted for Trump is a bigot(though I suspect a huge number are); there are many reasons why people continue to vote for the guy other than that
Most of my friends voted for Trump. I don't talk about it with them 99% of the time, but some in the rare time I did talk to them said they realized he was a bad person but they wanted lower taxes. So they were willing to accept that.
I don't choose my friends based on their political views. I'm able to separate my relationships with them from their personal beliefs. I just avoid the discussion with them.
They don't see that as "being a bad person" though. The Nazis were YUGELY popular in the 1930s precisely because Germany was prospering under their government.
Perfect example of at least trying to listen to the electorate you actually have; not the one you wish you have(we'd been told for months inflation mattered)
Sure but bigot, criminal or otherwise, they're still fellow humans and citizens whether we like them or not. Many were and still vote with us as indicated in the senate races. We can choose to dehumanize others and risk alienating ourselves losing people we could have potentially reached or we can choose to reach out to them and try to help and understand them. My aunt is 1 such person. Hopelessly brainwashed by Fox and conservative Christian ideology plastering her house with Jesus photos. But she cared for my grandparents and our family and still cares for her sister with stage 4 cancer. Like many MAGAs, she gets quite reactionary and angry about issues like immigrants and abortion, but she still cares for us and the country, just in her own perverse way. We still talk and help her out in her advanced age because she's family, much like how many of these bigots are our family, friends, coworkers and neighbors. We owe it to ourselves and others to help and be better, even when they act deplorably.
Exactly. The majority of Americans don't want to hear about bigotry from politicians. In their eyes, the majority of Americans regardless of ideology are anything BUT bigoted. Unless your opponent actually overtly is bigoted, it's a loser argument.
That's works right up until you realize that half of Americans don't care about policy they care about punishing people for existing "above their station" (which, in some cases, is perceived as being a mass grave).
Policy only gets you so far when half of Americans are motivated by hatred, grievance, and a desire to punish.
You may be right about some of them. However, attacking all of those who voted from Trump, specifically the persuadable ones, isn't going to get them to reconsider their political choices in 2026.
Who's being whiny? What makes you think, after January 6th, and after what Trump has literally said he plans to do, that he won't do whatever is necessary to retain power?
I was just thinking . .we clearly need a male Latino veteran to run next time, who curses and can "bro out" with anyone. Unfortunately he's very short.
Maybe it's my way of coping, but one of my first thoughts this morning was of how well the 2026 elections could go for us with it being a Trump midterm. It was an alarmingly election-brained thought, even for me.
She has 2 years of a Republican Senate under a Republican President, very tough waters to navigate through if you want to win a primary and a general election. I wouldn't say she has no hope, but right now I'd put her chances where Tester's were this year.
Not to be pessimistic, but I think Susan Collins can actually perform better than she has her entire career. Over the next two years, she'll be able to play the role of the moderate Republican standing up to Trump when it's convenient. She'll likely win 55%-45% knowing how this usually goes, improving from 2018.
The only obvious pickup opportunity in the Senate that I can think of is Susan Collins (maybe also Tom Tillis). But it looks like the Rs will not need her or Murkowski for 50, so she’ll have plenty of opportunities to vote against her party if she needs to bolster her independent credentials.
In the House . . . I mean, the Trump battle lines have been drawn for a while now. It’s not like 2018 when there were a bunch of R Clinton seats still available. I don’t know where any major swings in our direction are going to come from.
Ohio will have an election in 2026 because of Vance being promoted to VP. I don't know what are odds are there based on last night. But we need to win a couple of Senate races from Trump won states to get close to a majority in the Senate.
Obviously, you protect all incumbents and go from there but getting the 51 you need seems damn near impossible in the short-term; however, I think Trump will (like always) double down on his plans, in a scorched earth way that could potentially go off the rails quickly; for instance, I contend the actual logistics of deporting 15 million people that have not even been identified and located is the most impossible job since the D-day landings at Normandy in June of 1944
Indeed. Lest we forget after 2004, the "conventional wisdom" was that the Democratic Party was going to be PERMANENTLY relegated to minority political status on the coasts.......and little else. Then Katrina happened, and the wheels came off the Bush the Younger administration.
I wouldn't count on a OH-SEN special election being competitive for Democrats once JD Vance vacants his Senate seat to become VP.
First thing first, Democrats need to have a more targeted outreach agenda that is about reaching out to the communities that were turned off by the party in 2024. With Trump having won the presidency a 2nd time (even if it wasn't back-to-back), Democrats need to shake up leadership at the DNC.
After that, sure, we can talk about the OH-SEN special election. Naturally, Sherrod Brown could if he wanted to decide on running in the special election but I don't think he'd want to jump into another race after losing his own seat in the first place.
I'll issue another apology to Mark - things turned out a pretty uniform net 4 points to the right of what I expected, making for a country closer to his vision than my own.
“Trump almost certainly would have won in 2020 had it not been for the COVID-19 pandemic.” Not so sure about that.
Don't forget that the women's march rallies had wider attendance than at Trump's inauguration. That plus the Democratic Party base being fired up more than it was in 2016 was indication Trump was going to potentially lose the 2020 election.
Frankly the "higher turnout benefits Democrats" mantra should have been abandoned twenty years ago. As I've had to point out many times, were that the case, Roy Barnes would have been reelected as Governor of Georgia in 2002. John Kerry would have been elected as President in 2004. Terry McAuliffe would have been elected as Governor of Virginia in 2021.
Being that Allan Lichtman's 13 keys were broken this time around, I don't think this is evidence though that his 13 keys are flawed. In fact, the methodology is a good way by which to analyze elections in order to give a bird's eye view of the national environment.
I don't think Obama's comments had anything to do with this -- Black turnout was roughly equal as last time.
Agreed. In a brief supposed 40,000-feet summary, citing those comments as some critical factor is odd to say the least.
That’s garbage.
Not helpful today
No. All those things would cause people who voted for Harris or weren't eligible to vote to suffer.
please take a deep breath and slowly exhale
They are using the name Charles Ritt. Not a sincere post.
Charles Ritt? I'm not following you; sorry
Sorry, not enough sleep. I was thinking it was a shortened version of Rittenhouse but forgot the first name.
Not a helpful post
I'm here this morning to proclaim Mark27 as the God of Election Predictions.
Not only were his Presidential and Senate predictions significantly more accurate than practically anyone else here, but his further prediction that Maverick County, Texas would have the largest swing of any county in America is looking pretty close as well. I really do have to hand it to him for his foresight of the trends of the American electorate.
From now on, I'm going to stop making election predictions. Either that, or just make Mark27's predictions mine as well. And Mark, if I ever doubted you, I apologize. You were right the whole time.
Agreed👍; I let the Selzer poll and the Ralston call for Harris in Nevada to blind me(lesson learned)
Where is Mark? Say something.
Also how is your revised state by state matched up? I think the original one didn’t sit with a Trump popular vote victory.
Now with TX FL OH well into double digit, blue states with shaky turnout, I think it is likely if CA stays a 20pt but reduced turnout.
I never made the downward revisions to match my popular vote guess but I should have. The only state I got wrong was one I should have never guessed to go blue in the first place: Nevada.
In fairness to everyone, no one predicted the bottom falling out even right wing pollsters didn't see this bloodbath.
Many pollsters saw it. They only thing they missed was the lack of ticket-splitting that eventually reverted to the prez race.
AtlasIntel saw it.
There is still an oracle in Iowa, and his name is Mark.
Wishing that Selzer was still the oracle of Iowa!
Obviously no need to apologize. It's just predictions that could have gone either way. For exactly two hours last night, I thought this was gonna go another way....when the national exit polls showed the top voting issue was "protecting democracy". I figured that against all odds, the Harris campaign's key message broke through in an electorate where 72% of voters were unhappy. In the end, this was even worse than I expected.
The problem here is that ultimately Democrats don’t know how to talk to ordinary voters and people.
Ironically, Democrats made the same mistake this year that John McCain made in 2008. When people feel that the economy is in bad shape, trying to claim that it's actually doing well is simply electoral suicide.
Yeah I think inflation is what killed us. It's a really tough place to be in because it's near impossible to really deal with inflation in a way that doesn't hurt other aspects of the economy. The only argument Dems had is that inflation in the US is better than most other countries, but if you're a Pennsylvania or Arizona voter struggling with it, do you really care if it's worse in other countries? Doubtful.
Inflation plus the fact that the majority of Americans associate the Trump years with good economics. Never mind that COVID happened under his watch.
The cycle continues, repugs break the economy, dems have to spend their term fixing it. Repugs come back...etc
The difference between 2012 and 2024 is that in the former election, the majority of Americans did not refuse to pretend that the 2008 Wall Street Crash never happened as well as the vastly unpopular Bush the Younger administration and War in Iraq. In 2024 though, the majority of Americans very much refused to pretend that COVID never happened. In their eyes, Orange Slob was President and the economy was good. Then Biden somehow became President and the economy sucked. No connecting the dots there. If voters did not connect the dots back in 2012, Obama would have been a one term President as Biden is.
I get flack for saying this, but COVID was never that popular of an issue with voters except liberals. Most people didn't want the lockdowns and the restrictions back then. The only friends of mine who really were obsessed with COVID. The rest didn't honestly care.
It was popular as an issue only in 2020. After it ended the following year, the majority of Americans wanted to forget it ever happened. Especially since it restricted people having lives. The realist in me thinks we won't have a complete public shutdown like that for at least one if not two generations. No matter the crisis.
I got flack back then when I said the lockdowns would eventually hurt Democrats. The financial impact was devastating to a lot of people who didn't have work from home jobs.
Indeed. Many restaurants and small businesses are not necessarily equipped with the ability to adapt to a remote work environment.
The one thing I was dismayed by was seeing mayors and governors essentially ceding authority to public health officials on COVID-19 reistrictions rather than trying to work around these issues and ensure that businesses would be able to thrive at the same time. You can't keep people on lockdowns indefinitely without there being serious anxiety, especially when it comes to economics.
The corollary is that the big macro economic indicators don’t really tell the story of what’s actually going on on the ground in people’s lives.
The corollary is that you can't tell voters "you're wrong." If voters say the economy sucks, the economy sucks. If voters say crime is a problem, crime is a problem. Et cetera.
Absolutely correct. Democrats made the exact same mistake in 2014 when they constantly claimed that Ebola was nothing to worry about, despite most voters thinking differently.
Ebola was nothing to worry about! If Republicans get people worried about the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, should we amuse them and comiserate?
Everyone knew that Ebola is a deadly virus, and most people didn't care about its exact methods of transmission. We should've campaigned on being a lot more aggressive in dealing with it.
Most voters don't want their politicians to try to teach them things or explain things to them. They feel that they should be the ones who are teaching the politicians. Republicans understand this. Democrats don't.
That's exactly the problem. Too many Democrats think politics is like school. It's not. It never was. It never will be.
I just don't buy this; look at how much Americans are spending on vacations, luxury items, going out etc. Americans aren't getting crippled by inflation; if they were you'd see spending getting pared back.
Americans just feel that all those things should be less expensive. And frankly, they're right.
The difference being though the economy is doing well right now, but not in 2008. But if voters say differently............
Here’s one thing:
What will the GOP do once Trump finishes his final four year term?
That’s the uncertain question.
And I do agree that the takeover of the Democratic Party, and its consultant class in particular, by highly-educated people from well-to-do backgrounds has had a major detrimental impact on the party, and its methods of communication are a substantial part of that.
I agree 100% with you.
Suffice to say, David Axelrod was dead on when he said he was concerned the Democratic Party was becoming to cosmopolitan and less about being the party of the working class of voters.
Maybe not the time for that comment. Actually, there's no time for the implication that Dems aren't ordinary people.
This is oft-said but Jon Tester didn't know how to talk to ordinary folks? Sherrod Brown? Tim Walz? We ran people who could've come out of central casting as "middle American working man Joe but with a heart of gold" and voters went "meh".
Tester and Brown both outperformed Harris.
The presidential race sucked up all the oxygen, as it always does every four years. Tester and Brown did as well as they could.
Fair point
Rightly or wrongly, we are seen as the party of "coastal elites." Doesn't sit well with people who have to "believe" in the "American Dream" and who can't accept that we don't treat everyone the same. DEI is unpopular with many people precisely because it at best erases the illusion that we are an equal opportunity society, and at worst seen as giving "special treatment to the undeserved."
DEI on balance is a good thing. But some aspects of DEI go way too far like having pronouns like "he/him/they". That turns off people.
100 per cent. Especially with those who live in non urban/suburban and non well educated parts of the country. As a person on the Spectrum, I consider people with disabilities - including those who happen to be White heterosexual males - to be minorities. I recognize, however that many are simply uncomfortable with people with disabilities, even people with good intentions. Society simply fears "different."
I don't know if people fear "different", they just don't like the idea of people who are "different" getting special privileges that they don't get.
I've mentioned before that I stutter. However, I don't want any special treatment as a result of that, and I'll bet that a substantial percentage of those who could benefit from DEI stuff feel the same way.
I have a stuttering issue as well, particularly when I'm nervous. A major reason why "The King's Speech" is my favourite film. But yes, in the eyes of many people, accommodations are seen as "special treatment", which doesn't bode well.
I'm on the spectrum, but highly functioning.
As am I. I have both a BA and MA and have been gainfully employed for many years. I recognize, however that unfortunately #1. people like us are the exception, not the rule for people on the Spectrum and #2. as we are still a relatively small minority, the majority of people even in 2024 wouldn't recognize Autism if it jumped up and bit them in the butt.
I'll be honest. I didn't get diagnosed until I was in my 30s. But I'm different from many guys on the spectrum because I'm very extroverted and I like having friends.
I work out very hard to look good and attractive. I need that to compensate for my social skills weaknesses since I can't afford being fat.
I've tried to talk to other guys on the spectrum, but some of them are pathetic victims. They blame everyone else for their situation. I've had to realize that, as unfair as it may seem, I have to conform to the real world.
We don't disagree there. I have ZERO patience for people who don't at least try to better themselves and won't even try to be employed. Unless they literally can't work. And yes there IS such thing as the real world.
Same here. What I do struggle with is that I'm 46--and have never had a romantic relationship last more than six months.
The best thing to do is just not show a bias and DEI is solved.
Easier said than done. Especially when it comes to disability issues.
I'm referring to the ideal situation, not something that in the current reality is able to necessarily achieve across the board in organizations.
DEI is important to pay attention to because it shows that a company is able to not be insulated from the real world and see that it's living in the past. However, if a company is able to successfully have a no bias agenda in hiring, then it's truly inclusive and doesn't need to worry about DEI.
FYI, I am neurodivergent and know very well that the corporate world doesn't understand professionals who have ADHD, autism, etc. enough.
I don’t think it matters when the price of groceries has gone up so much. I don’t think there was much we could do.
I would slightly disagree. The main issue is that the Democratic Party is becoming the following:
1) Too negative. Both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris ran presidential campaigns that spent more time going negative than simply trying to unite the country. President Obama had this gift of bringing the country together and was wise in both his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaign to not succumb to negativity being a central part of his campaigns.
2) Not completely aware of what's going on in the rear view mirror. It isn't just immigration and inflation but gender divide as well. Both men and women's issues need to be paid attention to.
I've always thought it was easier to get people to vote against something than for something.
I think you are comparing apples to watermelons in that analogy; 2008 to 2024 is insanely unfair to Harris in that analogy(and frankly, very unfair to Hillary in the other)
2008, 2016 and 2024 are indeed completely different elections in much different times.
However, it's the campaign I'm referring to, not necessarily the particular context that happened at a given presidential election year. I'm mainly pointing out that Obama was able to unite the country without becoming a divisive politician. If say he ran for his 2nd term in 2016 or 2024, I don't know for certain he would have won against Trump.
What I'm mainly looking at is how both 2016 and 2024 are similar in tone and what could have been done to improve this as well as other things in the campaign.
Too negative? Trump's entire campaign was "we're going to hell everything sucks"
When we’re talking about what drives voters to cast their votes for Trump, it’s like putting gasoline on the fire:
You can’t expect to unite enough voters if they’re thinking, “What more does Harris have that can impact me besides her relentless attacks on Trump?”
Democratic voters are simply driven differently than Republican voters. The former actually want to vote FOR things.
Thanks for the efforts of everyone who worked in the elections(no matter the outcome); personally, I am going to take a short break to reflect and recharge, and then when the time right, get back in the game
Well, look at the bright side. Trump can’t run again. Although I’m sure he’ll try.
Jr
Doubt it. And I doubt that coke head would be successful if he did.
I don't think he'd be successful at all; but, I think one of Trump family\children will run
The Trump boys don't have the juice; IMO Vance is the logical front-runner but I'm sure DeSantis is itching for a other go.
I think they think they do have the 'juice'(of course I don't think that, but my opinion isn't the point)
I think what we've seen in 2022 and 2024 is that Trumpy candidates who are not Trump himself just do not have the same pull. Look at how much Kari Lake is running behind Trump.
Absolutely
I don't get it, but it's clearly the truth. A horrible choice, but if I had to choose I'd say that Kari Lake is a significantly less odious person than Trump. And yet...
It's media coverage, IMO.
Even beyond the bias I mention in another comment, something about Trump manages to avoid getting the level of critique for his failings that basically all other politicians receive.
I think it's a combination of:
(1) His narcissism and internal delusion, which leads to him consistently denying any wrongdoing in his actions in a way that at least sounds like he believes it. And:
(2) The sheer volume of scandals and failings of his; each new one drowns out the one prior to it. Almost like an episode of the Simpsons, where Mr. Burns finds out he has so many diseases that it keeps him in good health.
Candidates like Lake and Robinson only get focus on a narrow quantity of awful traits of theirs, but the focus on those failings is consistent. How many months ago was the last serious media focus on Trump's felony convictions? How many years ago for Access Hollywood? His impeachments? What about the next two dozen stories that would have endured in isolation?
If any one of those stories had endured and not been supplanted by the next story, it would have sunk him. He generates so much garbage that none of it gets any sustained attention and in many ways it might as well not exist. He is the epitome of the "flood the zone with shit" strategy.
Not to mention candidates who make the mistake of overtly calling themselves fascists or Nazis. I maintain that Mark Robinson could very well have pulled off the win in North Carolina had the "Black Nazi" comment not come out. It's one thing to be called a Nazis or a fascist. It's another thing to actually call yourself one. He did the latter. Orange Slob has NEVER actually called himself a fascist.
I agree with you but Robinson had as much(if not more) baggage than Trump, with much less charisma
He was also running against a VERY strong candidate. Governor Elect Josh Stein is the sitting Attorney General and previously served in the North Carolina Senate. He wasn't and isn't a nobody.
I am not sure if that makes Harris a 'nobody' or maybe I am not understanding ?Or we could just be agreeing in different ways
It's yet to be seen whether, Vance, DeSantis, Cruz and co will drive out the same MAGAs and supporters Trump did, but it's highly unlikely Trump will run again for reelection. It's already reported that Trump himself has no plans for future rallies and his age will literally catch up to him by 2028. At the very least there's a clean slate for Democrats and Republicans to work with by then.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/04/donald-trump-rallies-election-2024/75952197007/
He's not allowed to run
I mean there's always the hypothetical that Trump tries to run anyway and hope that the Supreme Court or Congress backs him up. Also the dystopian hypothetical that he decides to stay in office indefinitely. Either way the point is time continues to catch up to him. This is basically demented Reagan on steroids.
We still have a Constitutional amendment procedure(if he's able to do that successfully then he should be allowed to run; just like anyone else) but I understand your thoughts
Yes.
Also, at least for Trump is really the last remaining figure the GOP has who can win at the presidential level in this environment. All the other presidential candidates who ran in the primaries before Trump overwhelmingly swept all the states wouldn't have been assured to have captured the attention in the media the way Trump did at his rallies.
Who's going to stop him if he does try?
Eh, I think there are too many ambitious Republican politicians who want to run for President themselves.
Plus, John Roberts would use upholding the 22nd Amendment as a crumb to throw to us while rubber-stamping everything else Trump does.
Not a matter of who, but rather what will stop him. Simply put Mother Nature and time. As we've been seeing at his rallies, Trump's energy has been getting lower and lower and his mental deterioration has only worsened. Trump being escorted by an aide constantly perhaps in a wheelchair or walker by 2028 would not surprise me.
He'll never allow that imo (FDR was able to hide it; Trump couldn't)
Biden should never have run again to begin with. And the party needs to break its reliance on insiders and believing that raising gobs and gobs of money is the be all. It needs to stop acting as if it is afraid of its own voters and create some passion on issues like the oligarchy will now be living under. According to the exits, there were fewer voters identifying as Democrats than Republicans AND independents. That has never happened before.
dead right about money; and give Trump credit he got the votes
No
Denial is not a game plan
I say dead wrong on the money thing. Saying Dems relied on fundraising too much is just silly. It doesn’t even logically make sense.
Well I guess it could make sense if we were Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman circa 2010. But nobody is self-funding their Pres campaign bajillions of dollars. It was all of us that did that.
you are making your own frame; no one said what you are saying they said(cherry picking on the original post is misleading)
“Believing that raising gobs and gobs of money is the be all” vs me framing it as “Dems relied on fundraising too much”. Sounds about the same to me.
Not to me but ok
One of the fatal flaws with Harris's campaign was the lack of a clear message or theme for her presidency. This election confirmed the following: 1) voters don't care about civic issues if there isn't a direct connection to their material welfare (i.e. preserving democracy); 2) voters are responsive to vapid sloganeering and easily digestible policies/pledges.
The latter is one of Trump's core strengths ("build the wall", "stop the migrants", "lower inflation", etc). It doesn't matter if his promises aren't practical because voters don't care about the fine print. Harris had a strong platform, but you couldn't intuitively connect her to any single issue with the exception of abortion. Democrats need to ditch the nuance and get down to the level of the average voter.
Agreed with your final sentence, which is directly related to my comment above about how the takeover of the Democratic consultant class by highly-educated people from well-to-do backgrounds has harmed the Democratic Party.
People with an education aren't the enemy. We do need to communicate gooder though
Please don't put words in my mouth. No one ever said they were the enemy. Just don't put them in charge of the Democratic Party's communications.
Again, what do you want, no Ivy league? Only state colleges?
I’ll chime in here:
What ProudNewEnglander is talking about is that Democrats are not including enough diversity in the party so as to influence the party to be more inclusive.
Getting more diversity included more participants in the Democratic Party who can speak to the struggles of the poor and working class, especially considering states like WV are increasingly out of reach for Democrats.
Everyone in the party should have a sit down with Bernie Sanders. Regardless of how you feel about him, I think we can all agree he's an extremely effective communicator. He's a master of the simple, thematically clear messaging we need to embrace.
I like Bernie but I'm not thinking he's the right 'face'; I'm more along the lines of Pete Butigeg
Not saying he should be the face of the party. Just noting that irrespective of substance, the mechanics of his messaging are extremely strong. We should replicate that structure and approach, not necessarily the policy specifics.
Gotcha;
Or is he "strong" because he has the good fortune of living in a small, rural, left leaning, homogeneous state where just about everyone looks, thinks, and acts exactly like him?
Some aspects of Bernie's messages are popular. But he would never have beaten Trump in 2016 because this just isn't a socialist country. And socialism isn't popular here. I hope that doesn't wade into the primary talk.
I don't think it's so black and white as much as you're arguing.
During the 2016 primaries, Bernie Sanders was actually respected by Trump supporters/voters and had a better ability to win them over than Clinton ever did (in fact, she didn't even bother to try in the 2016 campaign). The fact that Bernie was talking about getting money out of politics resonated with the MAGA base Trump created. Also, Bernie neither went after MAGA supporters nor called them "deplorable" like Clinton did.
The reason why Sanders and Trump got traction in the primaries was because they taped into sentiment that both the Democratic and Republican parties failed to capture for a long time - Being disillusioned by the two-party system.
Remember, Clinton lost MI, PA and WI by narrow margins. If Bernie had the Democratic Party machine and base fired up, I have no doubt he would have improved on Clinton's margins.
Bernie never faced the general election. There’s videos of him praising Marxist dictators, praising Soviet era breadlines. He’s also a “self-proclaimed Socialist”.
Trump would’ve destroyed him with red-baiting ads. They would’ve worked with devastating effectiveness.
This just isn’t a Socialist country.
Bernie's a Democratic Socialist, not socialist.
You're correct Bernie never faced the general election but how do you know for sure Trump would have destroyed Bernie with the ads you're describing? Bernie had to deal with the same issue in the primaries and yet he was able to win states like MI and WI over Clinton. Trump also praised Vladimir Putin and Russia. Bernie could have used this against him as well.
I think you underestimate how effective Bernie was at messaging, especially at his rallies.
Bottom line: The US isn’t a socialist country. Bernie would’ve failed miserably.
The US isn't a socialist country because we have a market economy along with social programs. However, it is also possible to argue that countries like those what Bernie is arguing praise for are accomplishing things that the US is not (which is what he was doing, not straight out praising dictators). Cuba may be a country overrun by institutional communism & rampant economic rationing but it has a universal healthcare system that is not for-profit and Michael Moore argued this in his Sicko documentary (and I have some occasional problems with Moore's documentaries).
Bernie's agenda is in line with FDR's agenda but I fail to see how he'd make the US more socialist (public colleges were btw tuition free before CA Governor Ronald Reagan changed things). The only way Bernie would have failed miserably is if he wouldn't have a counter offensive on the issue of socialism. Other than that, everything is all just speculative in retrospect.
“Socialism” is a politically toxic term that is a nonstarter with too many voters.
I got this email from Bernie, and I felt like posting it here. I'm a socialist, but I'm so pissed at this email that I think I'm going to unsubscribe from his emails. The Democrats are always better for working people than the Republicans, and Biden and this Congress in particular did so much for working people! And it's Trump and his corrupt cabal who will really bring a Russian-style oligarchy to this country. As far as I'm concerned, Bernie has become an annoying crank, and he definitely picked the wrong time for this shit, too.
Dear Michael,
It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right.
Today, while the very rich are doing phenomenally well, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and we have more income and wealth inequality than ever before. Unbelievably, real, inflation-accounted-for weekly wages for the average American worker are actually lower now than they were 50 years ago.
Today, despite an explosion in technology and worker productivity, many young people will have a worse standard of living than their parents. And many of them worry that Artificial Intelligence and robotics will make a bad situation even worse.
Today, despite spending far more per capita than other countries, we remain the only wealthy nation not to guarantee health care to all as a human right and we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. We, alone among major countries, cannot even guarantee paid family and medical leave.
Today, despite strong opposition from a majority of Americans, we continue to spend billions funding the extremist Netanyahu government’s all out war against the Palestinian people which has led to the horrific humanitarian disaster of mass malnutrition and the starvation of thousands of children.
Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful Oligarchy which has so much economic and political power? Probably not.
In the coming weeks and months those of us concerned about grassroots democracy and economic justice need to have some very serious political discussions.
Stay tuned.
Yep. Whether we Democrats like it or not, this is a "Star Wars" country. Not a "Star Trek" country. This is a "Duck Dynasty" country. Not a "Downton Abbey" country. We forget that at our peril.
But Star Wars was anti-fascist.
It was widely praised by conservative warriors like Newt Gingrich at the time for its simplistic good/evil message and its supposed "democratic USA vs evil Communists" theme. It wasn't until the prequels came out where it became seen and denounced as "left wing." And BTW, there is a lesson from the prequels that relates to this election, don't respond to young men the way the Jedi Council responded to Anakin Skywalker. Or else they'll seek out people like Joe Rogan and the Manosphere the way Anakin Skywalker sought out Senator Palpatine.
I mean conservatives liked Born in the USA too.
Doesn't mean they interpreted it correctly.
I didn't say that "Star Wars" wasn't anti fascist. I said that it was popular with hardcore conservatives for its simplistic good/evil message.
I would argue there's a third confirmation: The Bradley Effect is still very much a thing.
I think it's more of a Hillary effect
House as stands currently -
We started -1 on the night from redistricting (+AL-02, LA-06; - 3 NC seats).
We have currently flipped 3 seats (NY-04, NY-19, NY-22).
Rs have flipped 3 D-held seats (PA-07, PA-08, MI-07).
Still a lot of vote to count, particularly in California. Outside of CA, we have a good chance at picking up OR-05, and the D is ahead in AZ-06. Only D outside of CA currently in any danger is Peltola, who is behind by 4 but with a lot of the vote out (plus ranked choice at the end).
Do you happen to know all incumbent losers for the House? as of now?
For R’s - D’Esposito, Molinaro, Brandon Williams
For D’s - Cartwright, Wild (MI-07 was Slotkin’s old seat so was open)
Thanks so much👍
Wasn't seeing Cartwright lose(I'd seen polls of the slotkin seat)
Considering the trends with working-class voters across the country, I'm amazed Harris won Lackawanna County at all.
Agreed👍; the Democratic party needs to look under the hood
It will probably come down to the 5 Republican seats in California. And Democrats will probably have to win at least three of them.
So I spent all of yesterday working the polls in my ward in NH. For most of the day, my job was to stand next to the voting machine to make sure that everyone could successfully insert their ballots into it.
A significant percentage of voters inserted their ballots face-up, meaning that I could see who they voted for. And while it was clear that Harris would win my ward, there were plenty of people who voted for Trump. So it was clear pretty quickly that the Republican base hadn't abandoned their support of Trump like the Selzer poll had predicted. Many of the Trump voters were men in their 20s and 30s who I hadn't seen before (in past elections), which was another bad sign. But there were a surprising number of women in their 20s and 30s who voted for Trump as well. And in the evening, there was a long line at the voter registration table, and those people were the last ones to vote, and a disproportionate number of them voted for Trump as well.
My ward had very high turnout - over 10% greater than 2020. That translated into about 250 more votes than 2020. And as it turned out, of those 250 new votes, 200 went to Trump and only 50 went to Harris. As soon as I saw, on the paper that the ballot machine was printing, that Trump got 200 more votes in my ward than in 2020, I knew that he had won the election. We should feel lucky that NH itself didn't vote for Trump - if every precinct in NH had the same swing that mine did, NH would've voted for him.
I noticed that Craig lost by 9 !; wow, and thanks for your service
Craig couldn't even win her home city of Manchester, where she used to be mayor. Pretty pathetic performance.
Are senate seats from flipped states still salvageable? Gallego's still ahead, as are Baldwin & Slotkin, but I have no idea what's still out to count.
Gallego, Baldwin, Slotkin, and Rosen all have decent odds. Casey's in rough shape, though.
ARe we sure about that? Anybody know what's left in Philly?
No words, of course. This election has revealed a profound moral rot within our country. Not sure what happens next, but surely nothing good.
That said, I think we may have a new frontrunner for the 2028 Democratic nomination: Ruben Gallego. Based on yesterday's results, we clearly need a nominee who 1) can appeal to Latinos, and 2) effectively communicate with "ordinary" Americans. Don't think there's anyone who better fits these criteria or has a similarly compelling background (Marine combat veteran from a swing state).
I hate what this election says about our national character and the apparent preference for shallow machismo. Unfortunately, this probably needs to inform our strategy for at least the next cycle.
In terms of yesterday's results, shallow machismo was less important than inflation. And the way Democrats communicated about inflation.
I think the desire for a “strongman” and the fact that his opponent was a woman was more of a factor.
People absolutely want someone who can get things done. They're tired of Democrats telling them that we can't do things for procedural reasons.
Or at least someone who CLAIMS that they can get things done.
Both factored into the outcome. Trump dominated polling that asked "Who do you think is a stronger leader?", even though he's a stone-cold imbecile and criminally incompetent. Sexism alone doesn't explain what happened, but it was definitely a contributing factor.
That said, I am annoyed that there wasn't more messaging on Trump's trade policy, which will turbocharge inflation and savage the economy.
Here in Georgia, we definitely got hit with a lot of Harris ads about how Trump’s trade and tax policy will affect the economy.
Ah fair enough. I'm not in America so I've been spared from the onslaught of ads. Just doesn't seem like the inflationary fallout of his policies was a big part of the campaign narrative.
I don't think sexism was a major factor, particularly with Hispanics, considering that Hillary crushed it with them in 2016.
Hispanics have concerns over inflation as well. And Democrats just had further to fall with them.
I think there was a different hierarchy of priorities for Latinos in 2016. Trump's blatant racism and hostility to immigrants were central themes of his first campaign, and there was more uncertainty over how that would affect them if he became president. While those were still themes this year, Latinos apparently feel they survived his first term and are less threatened.
We also need to keep in mind when looking at Latino voters that we’re also looking at US citizens who won’t be deported bc of their vote.
We'll see if they still feel that way when they start getting put in camps to prepare for mass deportation.
I agree with this take. A lot of macho Hispanic guys who may not have ordinarily been willing to vote for a woman for President did so because they were frightened of Trump's racism.
But there's one name that throws a monkey wrench into the "macho Hispanic guys who won't vote for a woman" storyline: Claudia Scheinbaum
True, but Sheinbaum's opponent was also a woman, so they didn't have a macho man to vote for.
We tried to, calling it a tax on working families. Voters simply didn't believe it.
Sexism kind of does explain it though. Subconsciously or not, for a lot of people, "strong leader" implies a man.
Too many Americans are just irredeemable bigots.
Calling voters bigots is not going to get them to vote for us.
And, as we saw with the Hispanic vote, it doesn't get the people who Republicans are supposedly bigoted against to vote for us either.
All it does is make us feel superior while making the rest of the country think we're a bunch of arrogant, holier-than-thou assholes.
Obama said hate and fear won. I think that’s pretty clear.
Both sides already have that impression of their counterparts, and have for at least 15 years now.
I do not care. They're bigots and they deserve to be called out on it. We are superior than them.
Then I guess you must enjoy this feeling we all have this morning about what happened last night.
But I don't. And I'm willing to put aside my personal feelings about these people in order to make a legitimate effort to get their votes. And yes, many of them are winnable voters. Obama won plenty of them. Even Biden won some of them four years ago.
Caspian calling bigots what they are on an explicitly pro-democratic election website is not the reason these people vote the way they do. He didn't say it should be our electoral strategy going forward either.
There's nothing wrong here with calling bigots out for what they are. The question is: what are we going to do about the fact that so much of our country is exactly that? How do we work around it and win?
First step: don't call them "bigots." The country doesn't want to hear it.
I entreat you to re-read the first two sentences of my comment. Nobody in the electorate gives eight flying fucks what terms we use to refer to anyone while we talk on this platform. Nobody was saying "call them bigots!" is a campaign strategy or something that should be done on the trail.
not everyone who voted for Trump is a bigot(though I suspect a huge number are); there are many reasons why people continue to vote for the guy other than that
Most of my friends voted for Trump. I don't talk about it with them 99% of the time, but some in the rare time I did talk to them said they realized he was a bad person but they wanted lower taxes. So they were willing to accept that.
"Fascism is cool as long as I get more money" is still being a bad person though.
I don't choose my friends based on their political views. I'm able to separate my relationships with them from their personal beliefs. I just avoid the discussion with them.
They don't see that as "being a bad person" though. The Nazis were YUGELY popular in the 1930s precisely because Germany was prospering under their government.
I know of a former Green Party member who ended up supporting Trump. It's mainly out of frustration that the left has gone too far.
Perfect example of at least trying to listen to the electorate you actually have; not the one you wish you have(we'd been told for months inflation mattered)
Good luck trying to win an election doing that.
Sure but bigot, criminal or otherwise, they're still fellow humans and citizens whether we like them or not. Many were and still vote with us as indicated in the senate races. We can choose to dehumanize others and risk alienating ourselves losing people we could have potentially reached or we can choose to reach out to them and try to help and understand them. My aunt is 1 such person. Hopelessly brainwashed by Fox and conservative Christian ideology plastering her house with Jesus photos. But she cared for my grandparents and our family and still cares for her sister with stage 4 cancer. Like many MAGAs, she gets quite reactionary and angry about issues like immigrants and abortion, but she still cares for us and the country, just in her own perverse way. We still talk and help her out in her advanced age because she's family, much like how many of these bigots are our family, friends, coworkers and neighbors. We owe it to ourselves and others to help and be better, even when they act deplorably.
I think this is the biggest issue Democrats struggle with across the board. Democrats care about being right, Republicans care about winning.
In a sane world, being right would match up with winning, but we don't live in a sane world.
Which is fine except too many Democrats don't take into account that not everyone has the exact same definition of "what is right."
Exactly. The majority of Americans don't want to hear about bigotry from politicians. In their eyes, the majority of Americans regardless of ideology are anything BUT bigoted. Unless your opponent actually overtly is bigoted, it's a loser argument.
How do you fight bigotry without fighting the bigots?
Talking about policies that the majority of Americans actually support for instance.
That's works right up until you realize that half of Americans don't care about policy they care about punishing people for existing "above their station" (which, in some cases, is perceived as being a mass grave).
Policy only gets you so far when half of Americans are motivated by hatred, grievance, and a desire to punish.
I mean if being called bigots hurts their feelings they can try not being bigots.
once again missing the point from above mainly about the 'only' thing that matters in politics, which is winning
You may be right about some of them. However, attacking all of those who voted from Trump, specifically the persuadable ones, isn't going to get them to reconsider their political choices in 2026.
Bold of you to assume Project 2025 leads to free and fair elections in 2026.
There will be elections in 2026. I'm not going to catastrophize everything the way some on the left do.
I never said there wouldn't be elections. Hungary has elections. So does Russia.
I'm not going to catastrophize like you and others are. Our side has the whiniest people ever.
Who's being whiny? What makes you think, after January 6th, and after what Trump has literally said he plans to do, that he won't do whatever is necessary to retain power?
Trump will do horrible things. I don't disagree with that at all. But what's done is done. It's time to focus on the next election cycle.
I was just thinking . .we clearly need a male Latino veteran to run next time, who curses and can "bro out" with anyone. Unfortunately he's very short.
Assuming he holds on and wins this year.
Maybe it's my way of coping, but one of my first thoughts this morning was of how well the 2026 elections could go for us with it being a Trump midterm. It was an alarmingly election-brained thought, even for me.
Not just you. I've been thinking about Susan Collins's chances in 2026 - whether she's merely highly endangered or just absolutely dead meat.
She has 2 years of a Republican Senate under a Republican President, very tough waters to navigate through if you want to win a primary and a general election. I wouldn't say she has no hope, but right now I'd put her chances where Tester's were this year.
Not to be pessimistic, but I think Susan Collins can actually perform better than she has her entire career. Over the next two years, she'll be able to play the role of the moderate Republican standing up to Trump when it's convenient. She'll likely win 55%-45% knowing how this usually goes, improving from 2018.
Her usual role, pretending to be concerned then voting for everything Dump shoves her way.
She is no longer the deciding vote so she can oppose every single thing Trump does.
If that ends up happening, Dems should fund a Republican primary challenger against her.
But she won't.
She will be fine. Her brand of being "moderate" will sell in ME.
The only obvious pickup opportunity in the Senate that I can think of is Susan Collins (maybe also Tom Tillis). But it looks like the Rs will not need her or Murkowski for 50, so she’ll have plenty of opportunities to vote against her party if she needs to bolster her independent credentials.
In the House . . . I mean, the Trump battle lines have been drawn for a while now. It’s not like 2018 when there were a bunch of R Clinton seats still available. I don’t know where any major swings in our direction are going to come from.
Ohio will have an election in 2026 because of Vance being promoted to VP. I don't know what are odds are there based on last night. But we need to win a couple of Senate races from Trump won states to get close to a majority in the Senate.
Obviously, you protect all incumbents and go from there but getting the 51 you need seems damn near impossible in the short-term; however, I think Trump will (like always) double down on his plans, in a scorched earth way that could potentially go off the rails quickly; for instance, I contend the actual logistics of deporting 15 million people that have not even been identified and located is the most impossible job since the D-day landings at Normandy in June of 1944
Indeed. Lest we forget after 2004, the "conventional wisdom" was that the Democratic Party was going to be PERMANENTLY relegated to minority political status on the coasts.......and little else. Then Katrina happened, and the wheels came off the Bush the Younger administration.
I wouldn't count on a OH-SEN special election being competitive for Democrats once JD Vance vacants his Senate seat to become VP.
First thing first, Democrats need to have a more targeted outreach agenda that is about reaching out to the communities that were turned off by the party in 2024. With Trump having won the presidency a 2nd time (even if it wasn't back-to-back), Democrats need to shake up leadership at the DNC.
After that, sure, we can talk about the OH-SEN special election. Naturally, Sherrod Brown could if he wanted to decide on running in the special election but I don't think he'd want to jump into another race after losing his own seat in the first place.
I don't think it's a sure thing that whatever elections we have in 2026 are free and fair after Trump guts the nonpartisan civil service ranks.
Today is a hard day. Please take care of yourselves everybody and take care of those you hold dear.
I'll issue another apology to Mark - things turned out a pretty uniform net 4 points to the right of what I expected, making for a country closer to his vision than my own.
Did a personally trash him, why apoligize? Maybe give him credit instead
We disagreed recently. Speaking personally, credit is worthless unless it it lasting, while an apology carries a little weight.
I don't apologize for simple disagreeing.
No apology necessary. Goes with the territory with this hobby of ours.