US Elections 2020

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Aside from the direct implication for the Senate, the vote will also be important for what it tells us about the electoral implications of the Trumpist's brazen attempts to subvert democracy. If there are no adverse implications for the Republican party that does not augur well for the future.

---

I hear you. I think it's important for what it tells us and what it tells them. We need them to lose and make the attribution to Trumpism. Maybe they make a pivot if they see this is a losing strategy. We know that's the only way they change course. The audio speaks for itself, to people of all ages and levels of education. If they've lost the Presidency, the House, and Senate then there is also a window of opportunity for reform.

For Republican enablers it has not been enough of a deterrent to know they will be portrayed as villains to posterity. People don't seem to give a shit about that. Posterity is later. It's a real shame we can't show them history books from fifty years in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

The results of that race will not only determine who controls the Senate, but I think will also be the closing argument of what the 2020 US Elections were all about.

If Perdue and Loeffler win, than that means that not only did the Democrats fail to take the Senate, but they lost some seats in the House and in the state legislatures. Which means that the elections were all about getting Trump out of office, but a majority of Americans are either still not buying the Democrats' message. Or the Democratic party has done a poor job at convincing some Americans to vote for them.

We have talked before about how the future of the Republican party, but I think the Democratic Party would have to start doing some soul searching if they lose both seats on Tuesday.

If Warnock and Ossoff win, I think it will lessen the sting of those other losses and at the same time ensure that some things may actually get done in the Senate.

On a side note, Nancy Pelosi was voted speaker of the House again. While I'm not surprised about that, what I'm surprised about is that the "squad" voted for her. Lets just say Twitter is not happy about it.

---

I disagree. Gaining or losing seats is much less important than a change in the balance of power. Even more the case in such a polarized environment.

Before the race the Republicans controlled the Presidency and the Senate. After the race, at most they control the Senate by two votes. If they lose the Senate it is a big loss for Republicans because Democrats can pass bills by party vote. Even if they win those races, their President will still be the first incumbent to lose since George H.W. in 1992 and they will have lost power relative to before the election.

As for a change in messaging for Democrats, I'm not really sure what direction you think they can go. It's not easy to unseat an incumbent President and if the election looks like it was a referendum on Trump it could be because his negligence has killed tens of thousands and his corruption is mind-boggling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

If Perdue and Loeffler win, than that means that not only did the Democrats fail to take the Senate, but they lost some seats in the House and in the state legislatures.

---

I don't really understand the logic. Losing seats in the House without a change in majority is bad but gaining seats in the Senate and failing to get a majority is also bad. Heads they win tails we lose?

From my viewpoint, before the election Trump was President and Republicans controlled the Senate. Now Biden is President and it's possible Republicans will not even control the Senate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laphroaig

Washington Post reporting on a Trump phonecall where he begs and threatens the Georgia secretary of state to find votes for him.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/s...92166715600897

Part of the recording.

https://twitter.com/keithedwards/sta...96238722129923

---

I listened to the whole of the recording last night on the Washington Post website. What strikes me about it is the relentless repetition that Trump needs, as it is something he does in his rallies. 'We won by a lot' and similar phrases are repeated again and again, suggesting he has real difficulty in expressing himself except in stock phrases. Another is the way he tacks on to remarks the argument 'this has never been heard of before' or 'the worst in American history', 'people can't believe it'- he seems incapable of spontaneous expression. It also seems he has been fed a pack of lies by fawning sycophants, much as a medieval tyrant is constantly told by Court flunkeys how intelligent he is. I think we know all this, but the real question is did Trump break the law, and is anyone going to do anything about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

As for a change in messaging for Democrats, I'm not really sure what direction you think they can go. It's not easy to unseat an incumbent President and if the election looks like it was a referendum on Trump it could be because his negligence has killed tens of thousands and his corruption is mind-boggling.

---

I agree with Blackchubby, because the election has not setttled the questions that ask what it is that the Democrats and Repubilcans stand for as parties. In the case of the Republicans, they are in a crisis of their own making because they don't know what to do about Trump- one can even ask if the Republican Party still exists, while the Democrats are split on whether or not to play it safe over the next four years or be bold and radical.

I wonder if the 'Squad' and their allies are waiting for Pelosi and Democrats like her to either go in 2022 or retire and thus see their 'radical agenda' as something for the latter part of the first term, though it is not clear Biden is signed up to it. Some issues, like Climate Change can be acted on with a compromise on the 'Green New Deal', but some sense needs to be made of policing and law enforcement where reform rather than defunding is the issue. I think the US Government has to confront the reality that Law Enforcement Officers have been infiltrated by members of Armed Militias -I saw a report on UK tv which showed LEO with III Percent badges sown onto their uniforms. How much of the lethal force being used is not just down to the kind of training officers get and their personal hostility to Black people, but is part of an unofficial 'Civil War' the Militias are waging against what they see as 'Liberal America' from inside law enforcement?

Biden needs to be bold, and to ask Congress to hell him reform the Presdency, Congress and the Electoral System. Is is too much to ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I listened to the whole of the recording last night on the Washington Post website. What strikes me about it is the relentless repetition that Trump needs, as it is something he does in his rallies. 'We won by a lot' and similar phrases are repeated again and again, suggesting he has real difficulty in expressing himself except in stock phrases. Another is the way he tacks on to remarks the argument 'this has never been heard of before' or 'the worst in American history', 'people can't believe it'- he seems incapable of spontaneous expression. It also seems he has been fed a pack of lies by fawning sycophants, much as a medieval tyrant is constantly told by Court flunkeys how intelligent he is. I think we know all this, but the real question is did Trump break the law, and is anyone going to do anything about it?

---

I haven't listened to the whole hour and I'm not sure if this is in the clip I posted or another one, but one fragment that struck me was when Trump was basically told not to believe everything on social media. His response was "it wasn't from social media, it was from Trump media". Strongly suggests he only listens to whatever sources are biased towards him. Personally, I wonder if that's one reason he's still in denial over the election result having only been fed positive polling numbers and other information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I disagree. Gaining or losing seats is much less important than a change in the balance of power. Even more the case in such a polarized environment.

Before the race the Republicans controlled the Presidency and the Senate. After the race, at most they control the Senate by two votes. If they lose the Senate it is a big loss for Republicans because Democrats can pass bills by party vote. Even if they win those races, their President will still be the first incumbent to lose since George H.W. in 1992 and they will have lost power relative to before the election.

As for a change in messaging for Democrats, I'm not really sure what direction you think they can go. It's not easy to unseat an incumbent President and if the election looks like it was a referendum on Trump it could be because his negligence has killed tens of thousands and his corruption is mind-boggling.

---

I think this article will explain things:

messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20201207&instance_ id=24780&nl=the-morning&productCode=NN&regi_id=146170897&segment_i d=46245&te=1&uri=nyt%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter%2F4b0e7360-b5da-5a8b-a9f1-a9be6f6e4421&user_id=47d6a93fbeccff63f43a867ab6dc4 804

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I don't really understand the logic. Losing seats in the House without a change in majority is bad but gaining seats in the Senate and failing to get a majority is also bad. Heads they win tails we lose?

From my viewpoint, before the election Trump was President and Republicans controlled the Senate. Now Biden is President and it's possible Republicans will not even control the Senate.

---

Yes and that's why I'm saying that if the Democrats win the Senate, it will lessen the sting of the losses that they incurred on Election Day. The Democrats may have the majority in the House, but its a slim one.

Let me ask you this, before Election Day, what were the expectations for how the Democrats were going to do. Because from what I can recall, they seem to be pretty high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Yes and that's why I'm saying that if the Democrats win the Senate, it will lessen the sting of the losses that they incurred on Election Day. The Democrats may have the majority in the House, but its a slim one.

Let me ask you this, before Election Day, what were the expectations for how the Democrats were going to do. Because from what I can recall, they seem to be pretty high.

---

I expected Democrats to win the Presidency and the House. I was hopeful about the Senate. I suppose I wasn't judging victory based on expectations just prior to the election but compared to status quo ante. If a ten to one favorite in a boxing match wins eight out of twelve rounds I don't consider it a setback or a defeat even if the odds implied something more emphatic.

The question for me was whether they increased their ability to pass legislation and control the direction this country takes. The incumbent has historically done very well in our Presidential elections and Trump winning re-election, something Clinton, GW, and Obama did, would have been a nightmare.

I think winning the House (which is gerrymandered), winning the Presidency (with an incumbent tried to cheat repeatedly and used a pandemic to suppress votes), and having a chance to get 50 seats in the senate is a victory even if you expected more simply because they controlled the Presidency and the Senate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I expected Democrats to win the Presidency and the House. I was hopeful about the Senate. I suppose I wasn't judging victory based on expectations just prior to the election but compared to status quo ante. If a ten to one favorite in a boxing match wins eight out of twelve rounds I don't consider it a setback or a defeat even if the odds implied something more emphatic.

The question for me was whether they increased their ability to pass legislation and control the direction this country takes. The incumbent has historically done very well in our Presidential elections and Trump winning re-election, something Clinton, GW, and Obama did, would have been a nightmare.

I think winning the House (which is gerrymandered), winning the Presidency (with an incumbent tried to cheat repeatedly and used a pandemic to suppress votes), and having a chance to get 50 seats in the senate is a victory even if you expected more simply because they controlled the Presidency and the Senate.

---

I didn't expect more. I didn't think they would lose seats in the House.