2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
She is a complete opportunist, and also very incompetent on policy if the green new deal was any indication.
I don't know why the progressive wing of the party has such a hard-on for her (well actually I do).
If they wanted to support someone, Liz Warren is much the better choice given she understands economics and is pragmatic.
Enlist in the trump army to "watch the polls"
This is going to end up with a bunch of maga folks with ar15s deciding who they will allow to.vote ?
Can see this ending very badly
I expect to see ANTIFA designated as domestic terrorists and trump claiming "credible threats" to polling stations mixed in with the demorcrats will take away your second amendment rights if they are allowed to steel the election
Because of the increase in mail in votes it will realistically be many days or even weeks till there are actual results but Trump will declare himself winner on the night before sending his army to "watch the mail in vote count"
That's his plan for sure. We just have to hope hes still not winning.
Theres a reason they dont changeover til January.
There is, but that isn't the reason.
That;s right.
This I'm not sure about. Biden is an old white man with a totally non-existent/formerly hostile position to all identity issues. The base loves Cuomo too. The centre of gravity is fear of the right, so electability as determined by the media (which the base trusts) and by the choreography of things like 3 people dropping out one day before the polls is the obstacle which will never be overturned. If it was only identity then AOC would be an easy fix.
Centrist Dems going well once again. When will the pelosi endorsement come? That's when we will know the Trumpist-lunatic has it in the bag
Off topic a bit, but why do these polls show the results like
Biden 50% (+7)
Trump 43%
Is it standard to show the "(+7)" part? I mean a child can get the difference is 7, so why show it? Is it how it's done in statistics or...
Biden 50% (+7)
Trump 43%
Is it standard to show the "(+7)" part? I mean a child can get the difference is 7, so why show it? Is it how it's done in statistics or...
Yeah but we’re talking about Americans
Very long analysis of Bernie's failures, the only one that really digs into both history and county-level data - party leadership, race, class, turnout. The last section of the article, "a majority in embryo", is stupid optimism, but the rest is very grounded.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/08/bernie-sanders-five-year-war
Yet in other ways, the depth of Democratic opposition to Sanders was not obvious until this year, either to Bernie’s friends or to his enemies. Throughout February, as Sanders won New Hampshire and lapped the field in Nevada, panicked centrist commentators called on the remaining Democrats in the race to unite behind a single anti-Bernie candidate. But their palpable angst betrayed a near-universal belief that this would not actually happen. For “a critical mass” of Bernie’s rivals to withdraw at the last minute, reported the New York Times on February 27, “seems like the least likely outcome.”
We all know what happened next. Just three days later, on the evening before Super Tuesday, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar suddenly withdrew from the race and endorsed Joe Biden, joined by Beto O’Rourke, Harry Reid, and dozens more prominent Democrats and former Obama officials.
...
The essential problem, after all, is not that the corporate establishment commands Democratic politicians — it’s that it still commands most Democratic primary voters. Given a clear choice between Bernie’s demand for another New Deal and Biden’s call for a “return to normalcy,” about 60 percent of the Democrats who went to the polls apparently picked Warren G. Harding over Franklin D. Roosevelt.
...
A look at local results from the two elections suggests that Sanders was defeated by three key factors in 2020: First, despite a substantial effort, the Bernie campaign struggled to make inroads with black voters, which turned out to be a far more intractable problem than it seemed four years ago. Second, and relatedly, despite considerable success in winning working-class support compared to 2016 — mostly with Latino voters — the campaign failed to generate higher participation among working-class voters of all races. Finally, above all, Bernie was swamped by a massive turnout surge from the Democratic Party’s fastest-growing demographic: former Republican voters in overwhelmingly white, wealthy, and well-educated suburban neighborhoods.
...
“I can take someone who is deeply concerned about patriarchy and I can make them understand how patriarchy intersects with capitalism,” argues Sean McElwee, “much more than I can take someone who’s mad because GM took their job away and make them understand socialism.” The broader decline of working-class participation in politics may even be something to celebrate, from this angle, if it turns more congressional districts from red to blue.
But by 2032, today’s Bernie voters under fifty will likely represent a majority, and certainly a plurality, within the party electorate. What sort of left will be there to greet them? Will it be a thoroughly post-Sanders progressive movement, whose priorities are defined by social media discourse, billionaire-funded activist NGOs, and a friendly working relationship with the corporate Democratic Party? Imagine Sean McElwee giving a keynote address at the Walmart Center for Racial Equity — forever.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/08/bernie-sanders-five-year-war
Yet in other ways, the depth of Democratic opposition to Sanders was not obvious until this year, either to Bernie’s friends or to his enemies. Throughout February, as Sanders won New Hampshire and lapped the field in Nevada, panicked centrist commentators called on the remaining Democrats in the race to unite behind a single anti-Bernie candidate. But their palpable angst betrayed a near-universal belief that this would not actually happen. For “a critical mass” of Bernie’s rivals to withdraw at the last minute, reported the New York Times on February 27, “seems like the least likely outcome.”
We all know what happened next. Just three days later, on the evening before Super Tuesday, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar suddenly withdrew from the race and endorsed Joe Biden, joined by Beto O’Rourke, Harry Reid, and dozens more prominent Democrats and former Obama officials.
...
The essential problem, after all, is not that the corporate establishment commands Democratic politicians — it’s that it still commands most Democratic primary voters. Given a clear choice between Bernie’s demand for another New Deal and Biden’s call for a “return to normalcy,” about 60 percent of the Democrats who went to the polls apparently picked Warren G. Harding over Franklin D. Roosevelt.
...
A look at local results from the two elections suggests that Sanders was defeated by three key factors in 2020: First, despite a substantial effort, the Bernie campaign struggled to make inroads with black voters, which turned out to be a far more intractable problem than it seemed four years ago. Second, and relatedly, despite considerable success in winning working-class support compared to 2016 — mostly with Latino voters — the campaign failed to generate higher participation among working-class voters of all races. Finally, above all, Bernie was swamped by a massive turnout surge from the Democratic Party’s fastest-growing demographic: former Republican voters in overwhelmingly white, wealthy, and well-educated suburban neighborhoods.
...
“I can take someone who is deeply concerned about patriarchy and I can make them understand how patriarchy intersects with capitalism,” argues Sean McElwee, “much more than I can take someone who’s mad because GM took their job away and make them understand socialism.” The broader decline of working-class participation in politics may even be something to celebrate, from this angle, if it turns more congressional districts from red to blue.
But by 2032, today’s Bernie voters under fifty will likely represent a majority, and certainly a plurality, within the party electorate. What sort of left will be there to greet them? Will it be a thoroughly post-Sanders progressive movement, whose priorities are defined by social media discourse, billionaire-funded activist NGOs, and a friendly working relationship with the corporate Democratic Party? Imagine Sean McElwee giving a keynote address at the Walmart Center for Racial Equity — forever.
Last edited:
That's a low blow.
The article seems to cover the standard predictable grievances that Buttigieg, Klobuchar et al dropped out before super Tuesday, which of course doesn't really tell the whole story. Biden was always predicted to do well in SC and no one forced the millions who voted for him in the primaries after SC to do so. It also doesn't seem to address the real reason why Sanders always had a ceiling in the party because a vast majority of people don't see the world through class as he does, which is why his brand of Democratic socialism will in the future need to be refined if it is going to be viable in future cycles.
Disturbing yes, but i can also see this spectacularly backfire for him by having those voting against to become even more motivated. I know that's how i feel about it anyway.
Trump will continue to put fuel to this fire.
Yes, as I said, the article examines the role of the party (particularly Obama) in Bernie's defeat. As the article says, never before has the winner of Iowa and 2nd place in NH dropped out so soon, not even made it to ST. All that is in fact the first part of the article.
It then goes on to his ceiling among voters on race and class lines, which you maybe didn't reach. If the increase in wealthy suburban Bush/Romney voters in the Dem primaries that is demonstrated in the article continues, there is no future for any form of socialism. In general, any socialism that does not center class is quite simply not socialism.
Last edited:
Can someone explain the voting system?
What's the point of a general election when the votes dont count?
What's the point of a general election when the votes dont count?
The vote I cast for president on November will be to pick which set of South Carolina electors I want to go to the Electoral College... and yes, it’s stupid. It’s a leftover from an old system in which originally only white landowning males voted, and the only directly elected people in the federal government were the House of Representatives.
Biden would resign and make Kamala the first female black President. You heard it here first.
Elections are too important to be decided by common folk.
The "Fight" word is there on purpose. As someone whose been in marketing for quite some time, using his image and that word resonates with the folks who are willing to pick up their guns and actually start some shit at polling locations. This is by design and he's making it harder for anyone to actually believe the results of the elections (as long as he loses). It's gonna be chaotic in November.
So are electors governors or something and do they campaign for one or the other candidate and what happens if there is no elector in your state that wants Biden ?
They don't really have a function anymore. Each state has a set number of electors, depending on the size of the state, who will all vote for which candidate gets the most votes in the state: winner takes all. Two small states have proportional representation I think (someone listed it for me many pages back...) and electors technically can make their own choice; but winner takes all is what happens in practice across the board. So not all that different from first-past-the-post systems like in the UK and Canada.
Right so when I hear that Clinton won the popular vote last time its because more people voted for her but it made no difference because only elector votes count?
Yes.
The way its set up voters from populous states like California have something like 1/70th of the impact on electing Presidents as voters from sparse rural states like Wyoming and Montana (due to how much impact an individual vote has on an elector voting their way). The electoral college is a disenfranchising system that was originally designed to actually prevent 'democracy'.
This book is an excellent read on the topic that takes apart all the fallacious and poor arguments from people that support the electoral college:
www.amazon.com/Why-Electoral-College-Bad-America/dp/030024388X/ref=pd_lpo_14_img_0/140-9538793-1822256
It seems like madness to me from the outside and a little confusing.
If say Oregon had 10 electors can they all just pick who they want regardless of what the public vote is?
Yes, technically it depends on each state though. No Federal law binds electors, just tradition. It's very rare and almost never happens. But, it still happens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#2016
The fact that electors are actual people is a bit archaic, but if you just look at them as points it's not that weird. Having votes weighed a bit differently according to location is not unusual at all. Especially with first past the post.
Assuming you're from the UK, Labour currently hold 40 % of the seats with 32 % of the popular vote. Isle of Wight and Na h-Eileanan an Iar/Western Isles both get one MP each, but because of the difference in population a vote in Isle of Wight is worth less than a fifth.
I'm totally lost with this though I get the concept of weighting.
If I was a US citizen how does it work?
So I go along on polling day to the polling station.... and I pick a piece of paper and mark my X for Biden. Put it in a box with the thousands of others. These are counted? Then what?
Is it all tallied up per state then and a note given to an elector saying the state wants Biden ? What if the electors are Republicans ?
If I was a US citizen how does it work?
So I go along on polling day to the polling station.... and I pick a piece of paper and mark my X for Biden. Put it in a box with the thousands of others. These are counted? Then what?
Is it all tallied up per state then and a note given to an elector saying the state wants Biden ? What if the electors are Republicans ?
It is tallied up by state, each state has a number of electors and the winner get all of them. If you are in California, Biden will win and the 55 electors will vote for Biden. There are 538 electors, so 270 votes win.
Right - so even if the Electors are republican they must do what the public tell them? That makes more sense now to me.
That rule has changed now. The Supreme Court basically put an end to the chance of “faithless electors” a few months ago...
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/8851...s-state-faithless-elector-laws-constitutional
There’s a set of electors for each party with a candidate on the ballot. If the Democrat wins, the Democratic electors go to the Electoral College. And to answer your earlier question, the individuals that make up the “electors” are typically very active members of their state’s party structure but are usually not elected officials in another capacity.
Last edited:
Its all a bit convoluted really this elector crap. Its really just a weighting value. No need for this ceremonial crap really is there?
It’s archaic for sure, but the Constitution requires it to happen, so it does.
Is there anyone brave enough to change the constitution ? Make it something more modern and suitable?
A constitutional amendment isn’t exactly easy to do... https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution ... and way too many in the US currently support the Electoral College system for the amendment to be ratified.
The best bet to make a change to the Electoral College system is the current end-around National Popular Vote Interstate Compact effort.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
In addition to what @Carolina Red brought up: in practice, the US electoral system fairly heavily favours rural regions over densely inhabited urban centres: low-population states have relatively many electors, all states have two senators regardless of population, and I think congressional districts are not fully based on population numbers either. Since Republicans do better in rural areas and Democrats in urban areas, any change is immediately completely politicized - and therefore unlikely. (For the same reason, Republicans don't want senators from Washington DC or Puerto Rico.)
Makes sense that its not changing soon so.
- Status