Lessons Learned - Post 2020 Election Autopsy

[DonkeyCigars 144]

This thread is for looking back on what has just transpired (and continues to transpire) and either confirm/validate hypothesis or detail the differences between what you expected and what actually happened.

I heard a lot of people on the main thread comment ruefully some form of the following "Dang, I'm sad/hopeless at the idea that we have way more closet bad people then I hoped or expected" at the high turn out.

I've heard CNN, etc. expose that a necessarily high-turn out of voters meant an automatic win for Dems, and it was a fantastic comment that elections aren't censuses, you must still sell the vision.

But for me, my biggest takeaway:

Facebook/Twitter, while not completely innocent, was unfairly scapegoated for Trump winning in 2016. People blaming technology are blaming the wrong thing-- blame the human being and I think 2020's showing illustrates this.

[Redpuma 146]

[Neonmoon 38127]

NowThis?

[gmr548 16517]

Not really leaning because it was known but Florida sucks and climate change can do its worst.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

People lie to pollsters. 

[BradInATX 9208]

I think some of the initial data we're seeing shows that Trump 2.0 was a MUCH stronger candidate than expected. If the anecdotal stats we're seeing around newly registered voters going hard for Trump hold true, that's eye opening.
I guess the takeaway would be that the Dem party is in decent shape after being able to take the Trump train out. But that the country is in trouble given the lessons the GOP will take away from it.

[jdhorn92 1538]

IMO, lessons learned post 2020 GE....the liberal left has been neutralized.  Moderate dems ruled the day...err week.  Right leaning suburban types voted Biden and many more of the African American, minority vote went Trump than what was expected. 

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

31 minutes ago, jdhorn92 said:

IMO, lessons learned post 2020 GE....the liberal left has been neutralized.  Moderate dems ruled the day...err week.  Right leaning suburban types voted Biden and many more of the African American, minority vote went Trump than what was expected. 

Yep. Half thrills me. Loved seeing the liberal left get smacked around. Hated seeing Trump be positioned to be the leader in exile for 4 more years and the odds on favorite in 2024 to run if he manages to stay out of jail and/or not die in the next 4 years. 

[TexasEd 8064]

People like the status quo

They voted against Trump but not for progressivism.

 

[softlynow 1783]

I’m not sure we will learn that much and may have to wait 4 more years to really know what ‘16 and ‘20 were about. Trump may be a truly unique candidate. If Ted Cruz in ‘24* more or less holds onto the Trump coalition, then I think you can discern something about the electorate independent from Dotard. If not, though, then maybe the celebrity grifter, reality tv star and rapist trifecta is the lottery ticket Pubs need to keep buying.

*Check the history of Pub nomination runner-ups succeeding to the nom the next time. Reagan in ‘76, H.W. in ‘80, Dole in ‘88, McCain in ‘00, and Romney in ‘08 before you dismiss this. It’s their tradition. 

[ztejas 43266]

6 hours ago, BradInATX said:

I think some of the initial data we're seeing shows that Trump 2.0 was a MUCH stronger candidate than expected. If the anecdotal stats we're seeing around newly registered voters going hard for Trump hold true, that's eye opening.
I guess the takeaway would be that the Dem party is in decent shape after being able to take the Trump train out. But that the country is in trouble given the lessons the GOP will take away from it.

This is wishful thinking. I don't think Trump was a very strong candidate at all. You're giving Biden a lot of credit for basically being a default, career-politician nomination that secured the black vote in a pretty gimmicky way (oh and he almost fucked that up and probably did a little bit, and all he had to do was to not say anything about it)

Edited November 5, 2020 by ztejas
it's late

[BradInATX 9208]

This is wishful thinking. I don't think Trump was a very strong candidate at all. You're giving Biden a lot of credit for basically being a default, career-politician nomination that secured the black vote in a pretty gimmicky way (oh and he almost fucked that up and probably did a little bit, and all he had to do was to not say anything about it)

We'll see. The data so far backs my side of the argument up. We'll learn more in the months after.

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

9 hours ago, TexasEd said:

People like the status quo

They voted against Trump but not for progressivism.

 

Yep. I don’t know if it’s people liking the status quo more or people being afraid of change. I hate change. Loathe it. Stayed in a bad relationship before longer than I should because of my hatred for change. Inertia is a real bitch to overcome sometimes. 

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

9 hours ago, softlynow said:

I’m not sure we will learn that much and may have to wait 4 more years to really know what ‘16 and ‘20 were about. Trump may be a truly unique candidate. If Ted Cruz in ‘24* more or less holds onto the Trump coalition, then I think you can discern something about the electorate independent from Dotard. If not, though, then maybe the celebrity grifter, reality tv star and rapist trifecta is the lottery ticket Pubs need to keep buying.

*Check the history of Pub nomination runner-ups succeeding to the nom the next time. Reagan in ‘76, H.W. in ‘80, Dole in ‘88, McCain in ‘00, and Romney in ‘08 before you dismiss this. It’s their tradition. 

Yeah- I’ve never understood why they venerate losers in that way. Nixon was a recycled loser as soon as practical. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

What I believed: the more votes the better.  It levels out the extremists that are overly motivated to vote. 
 

What I believe: more doesn’t matter.  Americans are uniformly garbage.  More votes doesn’t level us out, it just highlights how deep the rot is. 
 

what I believed: trust science, trust math. Big data rules the world precisely because it is reliable. It’ll turn out exactly as predicted. 
 

what I believe: nerds deserve wedgies.  They don’t know shit about fuck. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

17 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Facebook/Twitter, while not completely innocent, was unfairly scapegoated for Trump winning in 2016. People blaming technology are blaming the wrong thing-- blame the human being and I think 2020's showing illustrates this.

It's a little of both, isn't it? Trump is the type of candidate that benefits a lot from microtargeting, bot farms, and the like because those are excellent platforms for his fear based campaigning. That a large portion of the electorate has migrated further into the bubble by signing up for TrumpTeam texts and new platforms such as Parller and specific YouTube channels is not helping. Even further, the tracking data that the Trump campaign scooped up whenever someone attended a rally or local GOP event gave them a lot of insight into voters. It's been pointed out that the tracking happens all the time anyway, but it's a little too on point when you can pair it with the cookies etc and suffocate them. Those constant endorphin hits means they cannot stay away, or they are deprived physically from what they crave. Q is a major drug for them as well.

11 hours ago, BradInATX said:

I think some of the initial data we're seeing shows that Trump 2.0 was a MUCH stronger candidate than expected. If the anecdotal stats we're seeing around newly registered voters going hard for Trump hold true, that's eye opening.
I guess the takeaway would be that the Dem party is in decent shape after being able to take the Trump train out. But that the country is in trouble given the lessons the GOP will take away from it.

I agree. I was taken aback, thinking that Trump was going to take hits with the popular vote that didn't happen. It was pointed out on another thread that some of his supporters may be people who don't usually vote and they came out in 2016 just for him (plus the regular R voters). Unscientifically and with no proof, my gut tells me the new voters are like this as well. People that perhaps are stuck (partially due to the pandemic) and got drawn into the social media Q rabbit hole. Combine that with his strong voter drive teams in certain areas and it may have worked. Just as the BLM was a powder keg waiting to happen due to continued injustice, the pent up energies of folks watching from the sidelines saw someone who could give them release for a lot of high emotion and frustration. It's why they can't verbalize it very well, IMO (the 'we're going to be taken over by the socialists --pedophiles--reverse racism--crowd).

I looked at our local electorate for our county. Turnout was higher than ever, but if one looked down ballot, it dwindled rapidly in percentage of registered voters casting a vote. They voted for Trump (we're a red county and city) and the senate, but my uneducated guess is that they left the rest blank for the most part. Some of the city races were far less than fifty percent of registered voters and the council (which is non party) was even lower. From my spot in the cheap seats, the people fired up to vote for Trump appear to be the combination of:

1. Resistant to change. (As Wulaw pointed out), especially when it takes a long term nuanced explanation. I'm not saying that Trump voters are all morons, I mean the resistance to change can be starting from a visceral distaste for considering the long term ramifications of what happens when you don't change. Among other fears, the fear of "what if this hurts me financially" is a very real and very strong fear. "As bad as this is, with X it could be worse. It is that could be, that gnaws at people sometimes.

2. Attracted to the myth that he is a strong man and this is how strong men lead. The 'machismo' that was, again, pointed out elsewhere. He punishes the people we want to see punished, philosophy. "As bad as my life has been, if I can hurt someone else worse , I feel better." It's scary, but I think it feeds some ego need for folks like that.

3. The propaganda that reinforces the first two. No doubt, it works and it works startlingly well. Aaron Rupar watched so many Fox and Trump rallies but somehow managed to inoculate himself from it, but it is the other areas and news sources that have mission creeped into the lives of voters. Combining that with microtargeting in key areas, maybe it's enough to create a groundswell effect that takes on a life of its own (the Trump parade syndrome, perhaps?). Supporters latched onto the 'branding' with merchandise and the team aspect of 'owning the libs' and it struck a chord.

So the TL/DR for me is that I believed a larger part of the electorate would assess the last four years and offer a rebuke of what Trump represents/represented as well as there would be a larger portion of the electorate who supported change for the better in terms of policies designed to address some of our structural failings and I was wrong. I agree, the lessons the GOP will take away from this are not on a good path.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5784]

17 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

 

But for me, my biggest takeaway:

Facebook/Twitter, while not completely innocent, was unfairly scapegoated for Trump winning in 2016. People blaming technology are blaming the wrong thing-- blame the human being and I think 2020's showing illustrates this.

I think we just witnessed the exact opposite. For example, Cuban Americans broke hard for Donald because they were scared of communist Joe, but you also have this:

"The city of Hialeah — a Cuban-American neighborhood of Spanish speakers that is blanketed with Obamacare advertisements — enrolled more people under the Affordable Care Act than anywhere else in the country." 

Seems to me the massive disinformation campaign through Fox/Facebook/Twitter played a huge role in Donald winning Florida. 

[Tuco 5076]

A couple of theories:

1. "Black Lives Matter" is less palatable to many people than I hoped.  I don't really believe in "shy" Trump voters, but I would buy that given a yes/no question on whether someone supports BLM, there are a fair amount of people who would give verbal support to it, or support to the idea that there are police reforms that are necessary, but aren't really solid behind either.  That makes it susceptible to bullshit like saying it was Communist and anti-Christian.  It made it susceptible to bullshit that mischaracterized defunding police.  Once you give some of those supporters an excuse to vote against candidates who support BLM, they will.  Since the Dems never really embraced the movement, they didn't work to define what it meant, so the Republicans did. 

2. Many people are more afraid of the shutdowns than COVID.  While they might dislike Trump's rhetoric on COVID, and think the government should be doing "more," they may be more immediately concerned with losing jobs and businesses if we go into a shutdown mode.  I don't think the Dems did a good job of tying economic stability to controlling the pandemic.  

3. Accurate polling may be impossible during an election cycle.  I get dozens of calls from unknown numbers a day.  I don't answer them.  The people who do answer their phone may not represent a good cross-section of the voting public. 

Those are just some theories.  I don't how you get evidence to validate or refute them.  And, on #1 and #2, they are important enough that you can't just back off them.  Maybe it's a question of how you market them.  

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Your number one seems on point. Whomever sets the framework sets the wave in motion and then it is hard to fight. GOP got going on that quickly. They have an entire playbook of talking points and they strategize better on that than anyone. Their media groupies (Rush) aid and abet that.

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

49 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

It's a little of both, isn't it? Trump is the type of candidate that benefits a lot from microtargeting, bot farms, and the like because those are excellent platforms for his fear based campaigning. That a large portion of the electorate has migrated further into the bubble by signing up for TrumpTeam texts and new platforms such as Parller and specific YouTube channels is not helping. Even further, the tracking data that the Trump campaign scooped up whenever someone attended a rally or local GOP event gave them a lot of insight into voters. It's been pointed out that the tracking happens all the time anyway, but it's a little too on point when you can pair it with the cookies etc and suffocate them. Those constant endorphin hits means they cannot stay away, or they are deprived physically from what they crave. Q is a major drug for them as well.

I agree. I was taken aback, thinking that Trump was going to take hits with the popular vote that didn't happen. It was pointed out on another thread that some of his supporters may be people who don't usually vote and they came out in 2016 just for him (plus the regular R voters). Unscientifically and with no proof, my gut tells me the new voters are like this as well. People that perhaps are stuck (partially due to the pandemic) and got drawn into the social media Q rabbit hole. Combine that with his strong voter drive teams in certain areas and it may have worked. Just as the BLM was a powder keg waiting to happen due to continued injustice, the pent up energies of folks watching from the sidelines saw someone who could give them release for a lot of high emotion and frustration. It's why they can't verbalize it very well, IMO (the 'we're going to be taken over by the socialists --pedophiles--reverse racism--crowd).

I looked at our local electorate for our county. Turnout was higher than ever, but if one looked down ballot, it dwindled rapidly in percentage of registered voters casting a vote. They voted for Trump (we're a red county and city) and the senate, but my uneducated guess is that they left the rest blank for the most part. Some of the city races were far less than fifty percent of registered voters and the council (which is non party) was even lower. From my spot in the cheap seats, the people fired up to vote for Trump appear to be the combination of:

1. Resistant to change. (As Wulaw pointed out), especially when it takes a long term nuanced explanation. I'm not saying that Trump voters are all morons, I mean the resistance to change can be starting from a visceral distaste for considering the long term ramifications of what happens when you don't change. Among other fears, the fear of "what if this hurts me financially" is a very real and very strong fear. "As bad as this is, with X it could be worse. It is that could be, that gnaws at people sometimes.

2. Attracted to the myth that he is a strong man and this is how strong men lead. The 'machismo' that was, again, pointed out elsewhere. He punishes the people we want to see punished, philosophy. "As bad as my life has been, if I can hurt someone else worse , I feel better." It's scary, but I think it feeds some ego need for folks like that.

3. The propaganda that reinforces the first two. No doubt, it works and it works startlingly well. Aaron Rupar watched so many Fox and Trump rallies but somehow managed to inoculate himself from it, but it is the other areas and news sources that have mission creeped into the lives of voters. Combining that with microtargeting in key areas, maybe it's enough to create a groundswell effect that takes on a life of its own (the Trump parade syndrome, perhaps?). Supporters latched onto the 'branding' with merchandise and the team aspect of 'owning the libs' and it struck a chord.

So the TL/DR for me is that I believed a larger part of the electorate would assess the last four years and offer a rebuke of what Trump represents/represented as well as there would be a larger portion of the electorate who supported change for the better in terms of policies designed to address some of our structural failings and I was wrong. I agree, the lessons the GOP will take away from this are not on a good path.

A couple quibbles with something I agree with in the main- very well said...

as to point 2 I think that’s mostly right- but I don’t know how much of that is punishment and how much is push back. I think Trump has a genius level ability to pick his enemies. I don’t now how much is actual desire for media to be punished amongst his electorate as opposed to just throwing hands up in the air and saying enough- these guys are deranged and not to be trusted (from things small to big- I’d lay that out as the Japanese fish feeding story as illustrative on the small end to a pretty ridiculously kid glove treatment of Biden and outright censorship by twitter and face book of stories printed by legitimate(ish) news media on the big end- hey are you guys platforms for idea dissimenation or are you arbiters of the public market place bc you don’t get to claim both as it suits you). It feels fundamentally unfair and it’s receiving push back. But- I don’t think that’s a call for punishment. I’ve never met a person that is really mad at MSNBC more likely to mock. Nobody cares about partisan journos when it’s obvious they are partisan. They care when it’s CNN the NYT or Twitter bc those guys claim they are in charge of objectivity. That’s my take anyway. 
2) a little quibble with your conclusion- I think the additional add of minorities, and lots more votes being made without swamping the GOP with a bigger and more diverse electorate is a good thing. Someone tweeted out that the GOP is becoming the party of the working class, nationalist, culturally conservative and increasingly minority. 
I don’t like nationalism but to the extent it says let’s stick our head down and avoid world affairs it’s not great but probably not incredibly harmful.  I like the addition of more minority voters. And more minority Pols. Hopefully that will lead to less of the worst elements of Trump. And being culturally conservative and saying- hey- America is a great place (and with your love of travel, history, Americana etc I know you agree) is pretty awesome from my vantage point. Doesn’t mean that we are perfect- just that our country is awesome. Positive happy people tend to succeed on an individual level. Lots of individuals succeeding is great for the country as a whole. Pissed off people, contrarians, people who see the clouds instead of silver linings change things that need to be changed in a way content and happy people don’t. We need both groups of people. 
Jmo. Thanks for posting. 

Edited November 5, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[BradInATX 9208]

41 minutes ago, Tuco said:

A couple of theories:

1. "Black Lives Matter" is less palatable to many people than I hoped.  I don't really believe in "shy" Trump voters, but I would buy that given a yes/no question on whether someone supports BLM, there are a fair amount of people who would give verbal support to it, or support to the idea that there are police reforms that are necessary, but aren't really solid behind either.  That makes it susceptible to bullshit like saying it was Communist and anti-Christian.  It made it susceptible to bullshit that mischaracterized defunding police.  Once you give some of those supporters an excuse to vote against candidates who support BLM, they will.  Since the Dems never really embraced the movement, they didn't work to define what it meant, so the Republicans did. 

2. Many people are more afraid of the shutdowns than COVID.  While they might dislike Trump's rhetoric on COVID, and think the government should be doing "more," they may be more immediately concerned with losing jobs and businesses if we go into a shutdown mode.  I don't think the Dems did a good job of tying economic stability to controlling the pandemic.  

3. Accurate polling may be impossible during an election cycle.  I get dozens of calls from unknown numbers a day.  I don't answer them.  The people who do answer their phone may not represent a good cross-section of the voting public. 

Those are just some theories.  I don't how you get evidence to validate or refute them.  And, on #1 and #2, they are important enough that you can't just back off them.  Maybe it's a question of how you market them.  

I think I agree with your #2 and #3. I'm not sure about #1. I'm of the mind that probably 95% of people who were put off by the BLM stuff were already Trump voters. Biden's strongest performance relative to expectation and the polls is going to be in the midwest; Minnesota, Wisconsin, PA, etc., where most of the BLM stuff popped off. I don't think we'd have seen that if BLM was a big swing issue.

[TexasEd 8064]

The riots in Minneapolis, Portland, Milwaukee, etc. scared a lot of people into voting for Trump.  Trump's Law and order message delivered votes regardless of who was responsible for the violence.  Trump did not pay a price for gassing peaceful protesters in DC, he may have gained from it.

For the BLM movement to make any headway they will have to be better organized and eliminate the violent element.

Edited November 5, 2020 by TexasEd

[huge 3788]

31 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I think I agree with your #2 and #3. I'm not sure about #1. I'm of the mind that probably 95% of people who were put off by the BLM stuff were already Trump voters. Biden's strongest performance relative to expectation and the polls is going to be in the midwest; Minnesota, Wisconsin, PA, etc., where most of the BLM stuff popped off. I don't think we'd have seen that if BLM was a big swing issue.

Didn't Trump win Kenosha in 2020 after losing it in 2016?  Or am I making that up?

[Tuco 5076]

21 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I think I agree with your #2 and #3. I'm not sure about #1. I'm of the mind that probably 95% of people who were put off by the BLM stuff were already Trump voters. Biden's strongest performance relative to expectation and the polls is going to be in the midwest; Minnesota, Wisconsin, PA, etc., where most of the BLM stuff popped off. I don't think we'd have seen that if BLM was a big swing issue.

Consider how quickly the BLM movement has progressed.  Four years ago, football players were getting blackballed for kneeling during the anthem.  This year, basketball players boycotted playing in the playoffs, forcing a compromise where stadiums were used as polling places.  It's amazing and fantastic.  But any time you have such quick gains, you have to worry about how much has really been what...internalized, solidified...not sure the right word.  In NE-2 House candidate ran 10-15 points behind Biden, maybe because the R incumbent was able to run a better campaign, but maybe because she was attacked on BLM type comments. There was a NE D state senator candidate who won in a red area, in part because her opponent was an idiot, but she avoided anything BLM related.  Definitely anecdotal and speculative. 

But, regardless, I think Dems need to stick with the movement.  It's not something you sacrifice. But they need to get better on how to push it. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

13 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

A couple quibbles with something I agree with in the main- very well said...

as to point 2 I think that’s mostly right- but I don’t know how much of that is punishment and how much is push back. I think Trump has a genius level ability to pick his enemies. I don’t now how much is actual desire for media to be punished amongst his electorate as opposed to just throwing hands up in the air and saying enough- these guys are deranged and not to be trusted (from things small to big- I’d lay that out as the Japanese fish feeding story as illustrative on the small end to a pretty ridiculously kid glove treatment of Biden and outright censorship by twitter and face book of stories printed by legitimate(ish) news media on the big end- hey are you guys platforms for idea dissimenation or are you arbiters of the public market place bc you don’t get to claim both as it suits you). It feels fundamentally unfair and it’s receiving push back. But- I don’t think that’s a call for punishment. I’ve never met a person that is really mad at MSNBC more likely to mock. Nobody cares about partisan journos when it’s obvious they are partisan. They care when it’s CNN the NYT or Twitter bc those guys claim they are in charge of objectivity. That’s my take anyway. 
2) a little quibble with your conclusion- I think the additional add of minorities, and lots more votes being made without swamping the GOP with a bigger and more diverse electorate is a good thing. Someone tweeted out that the GOP is becoming the party of the working class, nationalist, culturally conservative and increasingly minority. 
I don’t like nationalism but to the extent it says let’s stick our head down and avoid world affairs it’s not great but probably not incredibly harmful.  I like the addition of more minority voters. And more minority Pols. Hopefully that will lead to less of the worst elements of Trump. And being culturally conservative and saying- hey- America is a great place (and with your love of travel, history, Americana etc I know you agree) is pretty awesome from my vantage point. Doesn’t mean that we are perfect- just that our country is awesome. Positive happy people tend to succeed on an individual level. Lots of individuals succeeding is great for the country as a whole. Pissed off people, contrarians, people who see the clouds instead of silver linings change things that need to be changed in a way content and happy people don’t. We need both groups of people. 
Jmo. Thanks for posting. 

Your media thoughts are interesting. I sort of disagree and yet I don't. (sorry, it's confusing to me, too) I don't have accounts on social, but I do check around frequently. This fellow below I've been reading a lot more lately simply because in the last days before the election, the information was coming at a very high rate and it's something *one needs to monitor. The groundwork in Washington had already been laid four plus years ago and I wanted to watch how well the last minute drops, (laptops, hookers, emails, etc on one end and tax fraud, money laundering, etc on the other) resonated. Hard to say how much either succeeded, we have, or had, already ensconced ourselves in our comfortable bubbles.

But to point: This below. Ignore the Russia Russia mention. It is irrelevant to his argument in the sense that it is simply the origin for a type of communication. The later point in his second tweet about the "low trust environment and lowers it further," -----who do we know that does that on a regular basis, and pushes listeners/readers to "trusted sources" that repeat misinformation and lies? How are investigative journalists going to combat that without appearing as if they are constantly attacking the President? It is a consistent reinforced mantra that has collectively sunk into citizen's brains. How many people do you know that now qualify almost every statement in a conversation about politics with something either about the "fake news" or the "obvious media bias," or "censorship" or any of several buzzwords? It is a ton. I think we (and I'm including myself here) Dunning-Kruger ourselves into believing we can outwit and outsmart the propagandists and their methods, motives, and merchandising but we miss A LOT of what is right in front of us.

Aside from that, though, corporate journalism does need a reckoning of sorts. However, this is a super dicey situation, IMO. That WaPo tag: Democracy dies in darkness is not wrong. Transparency is important. But look at what sort of odd arrangement has developed:

The 'crimes' or 'bad' (depending upon your POV) actors have been completely out in the open, unapologetic for their behavior and choices.

The media landscape has rapidly evolved from print to world-wide instant information and the financial repercussions of that are still being handled. Paywalls are unpopular, advertising is unpopular, and people are flocking to the "free" information that dresses itself up as 'trusted' but doesn't follow sound journalistic practices. These practices get ridiculed these days, but if you have cancer, do you rely on and pay for the medical doctor who has the training and experience to treat your disease or do you go to your neighbor that gives you a copper wristband and tells you what you want to hear? Media has bias, certainly, and lately have been and continue to be raked over the coals for editorial decisions. But it seems to me that is a completely separate discussion, but the exposure to free sources of info that most do not fact check before spreading (FW:FW:FW) is highly problematic with a greater reach than ever before.

Your second point I'd like to discuss further, but I need to take time to actually work so I hope to discuss it later. It's an interesting topic and I enjoy reading your takes.

[Helobious 9481]

2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yep. I don’t know if it’s people liking the status quo more or people being afraid of change. I hate change. Loathe it. Stayed in a bad relationship before longer than I should because of my hatred for change. Inertia is a real bitch to overcome sometimes. 

Word of advice: there’s been lots of species throughout history that couldn’t adapt to change. You can see their bones in museums nowadays. You could say the same for many businesses.  The adaptable ones still walk around.

My main takeaway: America hates liberal people but likes liberal ideas ( FL on minimum wage & weed). And Never, ever count out Trump. Anyone that thinks he’s done right now is in for a surprise. 

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

9 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Word of advice: there’s been lots of species throughout history that couldn’t adapt to change. You can see their bones in museums nowadays. You could say the same for many businesses.  The adaptable ones still walk around.

My main takeaway: America hates liberal people but likes liberal ideas ( FL on minimum wage & weed). And Never, ever count out Trump. Anyone that thinks he’s done right now is in for a surprise. 

Sure. But you can’t just change everything willy nilly. I’m not still trapped in that awful relationship bc it got bad enough that it overcame my bias against change. It just took a lot of doing. But that bias against change tells me when I have a rare point of dischord with my wife we don’t throw away what we have, we work through it and come out ok (and sometimes stronger) on the other end. 
we can’t be totally and completely opposed to ever changing or against ever evolving or we will die. 
And yeah- I think we can agree that people hate the messengers on the far left more than the actual message. That’s a fair and probably accurate take. Sean king is a loatheable douche bag. That doesn’t mean everything he says is wrong, or even that his main thesis is wrong. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Mail in voting is a great method to alter elections to your particular flavor.  Its unfold. exactly as I thought it would, confusion and fraud. It was designed to function this way.

[BradInATX 9208]

45 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Mail in voting is a great method to alter elections to your particular flavor.  Its unfold. exactly as I thought it would, confusion and fraud. It was designed to function this way.

 

You sure cry a lot

Oh noez I have to board up my business because I'm scared of ANTIFA. Oh noez, they're counting all the votes! Oh noez, me and my band of hillbilly idiots is going to lose!

You're such a pussy lmao.

Edited November 5, 2020 by BradInATX

[ztejas 43266]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Mail in voting is a great method to alter elections to your particular flavor.  Its unfold. exactly as I thought it would, confusion and fraud. It was designed to function this way.

I'm a pretty objective constitutionalist and even if the Dems cheated him out of office (and I don't think they did) I'd be hard pressed to give a shit. 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

I don't disagree, however, that mail-in voting was obviously not a "zero trust" principle or best practice. I wouldn't doubt if there were shenanigans, on both sides. 

The only reason I'd care, unlike ztejas, is if some wholesale and scaled fraud was uncovered months later or years later in Arizona or Michigan or something like that. if it's the onesy-twosy fraud like I suspect, in my mind it's like petty theft or letting someone walk out of Home Depot with a handful of screws or a JCPenny with a camisole shoved in their purse; not worth cribbing over.

I don't think it's an obvious reality that there was massive, wide-scale fraud like OnBoard suggests, just because the map and the way things shake out seem so reasonable. Maybe that's the genius of the scam, however...I just don't know. I guess I'll let Joe Rogan tell me what to think in about 3 months.

[Brandywine 1313]

Dems are still pathetic at messaging and slogans.

Still having a hard time with Joe being the best we had. 

Trump will “kill anyone or everyone” to get re-elected or get his way. 

The country really needs to figure out a better way to vote all the same way. And no mail-in ballots should be mailed past 1 or 2 weeks before Election Day. I also think EVERYONE should early vote. Maybe even be mailed a day and time. 

[staboner 4959]

America is brain damaged

 

[Degenerate Gardner 4081]

Smoke 2 joints when you smoke 2 joints. And then you smoke 2 more.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Degenerate Gardner

[Satchel 6908]

Might come across as harsh to some but Professor Glaude puts it where the goats can get it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jemelehill/status/1324100163338579968?s=10

 

 

 

 

 

[Redpuma 146]

 

[Bateshorn 9905]

We r a center right nation. Except when we’re not.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Bateshorn

[Surly Bevo 24696]

We need a good plague to kill all the dumbasses.  Something solid, not this Covid19 shit.  This plague needs to go to work on Clevon's and Clevon's only

Edited November 6, 2020 by Surly Bevo

[mchookem 16222]

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

Might come across as harsh to some but Professor Glaude puts it where the goats can get it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jemelehill/status/1324100163338579968?s=10

 

 

 

 

 

jesus

that made my cry 

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

11 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I don't disagree, however, that mail-in voting was obviously not a "zero trust" principle or best practice. I wouldn't doubt if there were shenanigans, on both sides. 

The only reason I'd care, unlike ztejas, is if some wholesale and scaled fraud was uncovered months later or years later in Arizona or Michigan or something like that. if it's the onesy-twosy fraud like I suspect, in my mind it's like petty theft or letting someone walk out of Home Depot with a handful of screws or a JCPenny with a camisole shoved in their purse; not worth cribbing over.

I don't think it's an obvious reality that there was massive, wide-scale fraud like OnBoard suggests, just because the map and the way things shake out seem so reasonable. Maybe that's the genius of the scam, however...I just don't know. I guess I'll let Joe Rogan tell me what to think in about 3 months.

This is exactly how I feel. If you were going to design a system where zero votes were fraudulent it would not be a mail in system it would be an in person show photo ID system. But that would also be the least accessible and biggest pain in the ass of all systems you could design. So the question is- what level do you think any fraud or error is likely to occur on?  And my suspicion is it’s as you say- onesies and twosies that in the end add up to about nothing. 

[orangecat92 306]

Hiden Biden strategy was a loser.  Almost cost him.  He was forced to come out.  BLM and violence in democratic run cities was a loser for democrats.  Democrats noticed and I didn’t hear anything from blm the last 3 weeks.

 

biggest, still the basic. People vote for president on personality.  Trumps negative personality was far more important than any policy either side had.  

 

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

On 11/5/2020 at 5:16 PM, Ghost of LL said:

I wonder if we don't have a new paradigm in which high turnout favors the GOP due to its dominance among low-propensity, poorly educated voters.

Boy that would be wild. The electorate got more republican with 20 million extra votes which is absolutely not what anyone would have expected.  The biggest thing was trump lost 8 from last time but picked up only 4- while the PV moved from 2.1- 3.5 or so likely when all is said and done- or perhaps 4. But that was a net 4 point loss from 2016 voters which would have moved him from 2.1-6.1, if not for the 20 million new votes breaking slightly for him. Wild. 

[Anastasis 23394]

22 hours ago, Redpuma said:

 

Arabs make hispanics look like fucking amateurs. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Interesting.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

8 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Interesting.
 

Wow that is interesting. I wonder if it's because, as has been hashed out a billion times and not interested in doing it here-- WE GET IT-- that the phrase "Defund the Police" meant something that the term itself seemed to not convey, and there was some confusion in that messaging. It's worth the consideration at least and in the spirit of the thread (a look back to lessons learned), maybe sloganeering could be better managed (even if it was organically driven from the streets and not the DNC, you can help to manage the PR I would think).

Edited March 3, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[wildcat09 29258]

12 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Interesting.
 

Dems didn't even run on it, which makes this frustrating as hell.

[Js1 85110]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

*Biden didn't even run on it, which makes this frustrating as hell.

fify. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

On 11/5/2020 at 9:19 AM, Tuco said:

A couple of theories:

1. "Black Lives Matter" is less palatable to many people than I hoped.  I don't really believe in "shy" Trump voters, but I would buy that given a yes/no question on whether someone supports BLM, there are a fair amount of people who would give verbal support to it, or support to the idea that there are police reforms that are necessary, but aren't really solid behind either.  That makes it susceptible to bullshit like saying it was Communist and anti-Christian.  It made it susceptible to bullshit that mischaracterized defunding police.  Once you give some of those supporters an excuse to vote against candidates who support BLM, they will.  Since the Dems never really embraced the movement, they didn't work to define what it meant, so the Republicans did. 

2. Many people are more afraid of the shutdowns than COVID.  While they might dislike Trump's rhetoric on COVID, and think the government should be doing "more," they may be more immediately concerned with losing jobs and businesses if we go into a shutdown mode.  I don't think the Dems did a good job of tying economic stability to controlling the pandemic.  

3. Accurate polling may be impossible during an election cycle.  I get dozens of calls from unknown numbers a day.  I don't answer them.  The people who do answer their phone may not represent a good cross-section of the voting public. 

Those are just some theories.  I don't how you get evidence to validate or refute them.  And, on #1 and #2, they are important enough that you can't just back off them.  Maybe it's a question of how you market them.  

1. Black Lives Matter was a branding error that made it easy to attack. It should have been called Black Lives Matter Too.  Instead, opponents of BLM managed to convince enough low info white voters that it meant Only Black Lives Matter which led to bullshit like All Lives Matter.  Not everyone on the cusp of white victimhood sided with the police initially, but eventually they were swayed that way by negative messaging. For the same reason, we see police reform falling apart because of Defund the Police branding. 

2. Dems also fucked up pandemic messaging.  A pandemic is the perfect time to rely on socialism. It is not the time for bootstraps and kill or be killed. Nobody in America should have had to risk their lives to survive the last year.  Since socialism is a dead end word here, it needs to be rebranded too.  But they also needed to attack the fuck out of Republicans the whole time and they didn't. "We want to keep you safe. Republicans want you to die for their stock value."

And both of these things point to the larger issue. Republicans never have a plan. Their entire purpose is to attack the Dems plan. Dems can still be idealist. They just need to make the branding airtight. The vast majority of people support Dem plans. They also support police reform and want police to stop killing innocent black people. The left shouldn't care what things are called if they get the job done, so use terms that are palatable to the middle instead. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

On 11/5/2020 at 8:43 AM, Mrs Whiggins said:

Your number one seems on point. Whomever sets the framework sets the wave in motion and then it is hard to fight. GOP got going on that quickly. They have an entire playbook of talking points and they strategize better on that than anyone. Their media groupies (Rush) aid and abet that.

Yeah, I'm afraid the rioting and destruction associated with BLM, even if unfairly, put off a lot of people, along with the companion messaging disaster of "defund the police."

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

1. Black Lives Matter was a branding error that made it easy to attack. It should have been called Black Lives Matter Too.  Instead, opponents of BLM managed to convince enough low info white voters that it meant Only Black Lives Matter which led to bullshit like All Lives Matter.  Not everyone on the cusp of white victimhood sided with the police initially, but eventually they were swayed that way by negative messaging. For the same reason, we see police reform falling apart because of Defund the Police branding. 

2. Dems also fucked up pandemic messaging.  A pandemic is the perfect time to rely on socialism. It is not the time for bootstraps and kill or be killed. Nobody in America should have had to risk their lives to survive the last year.  Since socialism is a dead end word here, it needs to be rebranded too.  But they also needed to attack the fuck out of Republicans the whole time and they didn't. "We want to keep you safe. Republicans want you to die for their stock value."

And both of these things point to the larger issue. Republicans never have a plan. Their entire purpose is to attack the Dems plan. Dems can still be idealist. They just need to make the branding airtight. The vast majority of people support Dem plans. They also support police reform and want police to stop killing innocent black people. The left shouldn't care what things are called if they get the job done, so use terms that are palatable to the middle instead. 

But, and @bad_teammate said this repeatedly, it wasn't "the left" or a political party who engineered this terms and slogans as part of a campaign or platform. This was an organic, grass-roots, bottoms-up movement in from and in the streets. To have left politicians come in and strong-arm the messaging would have been a bad look. It's a fine needle to thread, which I referenced in my response above, and needed a skillful politician(s) to do it. 

The middle weren't in the streets protesting, at least not for the most of it, and we have to remember that.