It's Liz Cheney.OscarGuy wrote
Further, the treatment of Lynn Cheney, a dyed-in-the-wool conservative proved to them that Trumpism is here to stay and they don't like that one bit.
The Biden-Harris Era
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
"How's the despair?"
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
I spoke to my father two days ago. He lives in Arizona. He said he and his girlfriend were having dinner with friends this past weekend and they were all talking about what else they could do to help the Democratic Party. He also said how frustrated he was with Kyrsten Sinema (his Senator) and Joe Manchin.
This was not what people were saying at this point during Obama’s administration.
I continue to be concerned about how much the silliest aspects of the culture wars have sucked in party politics. People despise the Democrats for a host of reasons but I’m not sure that quite translates to actively voting Republican in the same way that the Democrats have a coalition that certainly understands that their ballot is a bulwark.
This was not what people were saying at this point during Obama’s administration.
I continue to be concerned about how much the silliest aspects of the culture wars have sucked in party politics. People despise the Democrats for a host of reasons but I’m not sure that quite translates to actively voting Republican in the same way that the Democrats have a coalition that certainly understands that their ballot is a bulwark.
"How's the despair?"
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
There might also be something to the realignment of white, educated, suburban women. The once historically-republican cohort has been shifting towards the dems because of the anti-woman, racist, homophobic, transphobic issues. They have historically been liberal on social issues and conservative on financial issues. They were also the ones who most readily supported the elusive, and misleading, notion of bipartisanship.
The reason I think the Republicans did so well in 2020 was that this particular group, which has a historically high voter turnout, thought that they could rid themselves of Trump, but still support Republicans and things would change. The last few months have showed them that the Republican Party is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Trump and their hopes for bipartisanship faded not just with the way the 1/6 Commission votes turned out, but the state and local shift towards voter suppression, something they don't particularly care for. Further, the treatment of Liz Cheney, a dyed-in-the-wool conservative proved to them that Trumpism is here to stay and they don't like that one bit.
This party identification realignment may now be permanent. Now that they know the people they voted for are more interested in towing the party line than bipartisanship, they may have finally been lost to the Republican party. At least we can hope. Picking up this consistently-voting demographic cannot help but be positive news for the Democrats as they can offset the non-voting youth and non-voting Hispanic blocs that have crushed Dem hopes on more than one occasion.
There's also something to the notion that young voters have seen the error of their ways and may finally realize that they cannot win their goals if they don't show up and vote. This could mean a permanent shift in young voting patterns. Xennials recognize that their rights are under threat and with corporations finally starting to take sides rather than sitting out controversial issues to avoid angering Conservative buyers, it's possible the small-tent Republican Party might be heading toward Whigdom.
The reason I think the Republicans did so well in 2020 was that this particular group, which has a historically high voter turnout, thought that they could rid themselves of Trump, but still support Republicans and things would change. The last few months have showed them that the Republican Party is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Trump and their hopes for bipartisanship faded not just with the way the 1/6 Commission votes turned out, but the state and local shift towards voter suppression, something they don't particularly care for. Further, the treatment of Liz Cheney, a dyed-in-the-wool conservative proved to them that Trumpism is here to stay and they don't like that one bit.
This party identification realignment may now be permanent. Now that they know the people they voted for are more interested in towing the party line than bipartisanship, they may have finally been lost to the Republican party. At least we can hope. Picking up this consistently-voting demographic cannot help but be positive news for the Democrats as they can offset the non-voting youth and non-voting Hispanic blocs that have crushed Dem hopes on more than one occasion.
There's also something to the notion that young voters have seen the error of their ways and may finally realize that they cannot win their goals if they don't show up and vote. This could mean a permanent shift in young voting patterns. Xennials recognize that their rights are under threat and with corporations finally starting to take sides rather than sitting out controversial issues to avoid angering Conservative buyers, it's possible the small-tent Republican Party might be heading toward Whigdom.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19337
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
The Stansbury win is indeed heartening. I have no doubt that the turnout and win for Dems in 2022 could be bigger than it was in 2018, but it depends to a great extent on how much the Dems can get done this year. First and foremost is getting the courts to overturn these voter suppression laws being put on the books by all these sick Republican state legislatures and their heartless governors.
Nothing turns off potential voters more than the difficulty they have in casting their vote. Many will see it as a challenge and do whatever it takes to do so. Others will feel it's more trouble than it's worth, and not bother.
Even here in "blue state" New Jersey, we are having trouble. Last year, during the pandemic, all registered voters received unsolicited mail-in ballots for both the primary and the general election. Many polling places, including mine were closed, but we could still vote in person at three polling places in my town, mine within walking distance. For this year's primary next Tuesday, there is only one polling place open in my town. It's at the downtown town hall, a place in which even on normal days it is difficult to find a parking space. Mail-in ballots are allowed, but we are required to apply in person at the county seat, not by mail, which is totally absurd.
Fortunately, only the Republicans are having multiple candidates in down ballot races. Everyone on the Democratic ticket is running unopposed so I have no qualms about sitting this one out. Things may well be back to normal in the general, but if they aren't, I don't honestly know what I would do. Just thinking about the people in other states who are put in this position and worse is disheartening. Imagine being forced to walk, take a bus if you can find, one or hire a taxi you can ill afford because there are laws forbidding your neighbor to drive you. Then, if you're diabetic, not being allowed to carry a banana or something to to have as a snack while you wait on line for hours, let alone a bottle of water in case you get thirsty in the long wait. It's inhuman.
Nothing turns off potential voters more than the difficulty they have in casting their vote. Many will see it as a challenge and do whatever it takes to do so. Others will feel it's more trouble than it's worth, and not bother.
Even here in "blue state" New Jersey, we are having trouble. Last year, during the pandemic, all registered voters received unsolicited mail-in ballots for both the primary and the general election. Many polling places, including mine were closed, but we could still vote in person at three polling places in my town, mine within walking distance. For this year's primary next Tuesday, there is only one polling place open in my town. It's at the downtown town hall, a place in which even on normal days it is difficult to find a parking space. Mail-in ballots are allowed, but we are required to apply in person at the county seat, not by mail, which is totally absurd.
Fortunately, only the Republicans are having multiple candidates in down ballot races. Everyone on the Democratic ticket is running unopposed so I have no qualms about sitting this one out. Things may well be back to normal in the general, but if they aren't, I don't honestly know what I would do. Just thinking about the people in other states who are put in this position and worse is disheartening. Imagine being forced to walk, take a bus if you can find, one or hire a taxi you can ill afford because there are laws forbidding your neighbor to drive you. Then, if you're diabetic, not being allowed to carry a banana or something to to have as a snack while you wait on line for hours, let alone a bottle of water in case you get thirsty in the long wait. It's inhuman.
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
Looks good. I'll take it.Mister Tee wrote
One for the "let's not get TOO excited, but this seems good" file:
"How's the despair?"
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
One for the "let's not get TOO excited, but this seems good" file:
Yesterday, NM voters had a special election to fill Deb Haaland's House seat. Haaland had won the seat by 18 points last November, while Biden had won the district by 23 points (reflecting the unfortunate gap between Biden performance and local Dem performance that cost Dems multiple House seats). Special elections are notoriously hard to get voters to turn out for, but roughly half of last November's voters showed up (that's very good, if you're wondering). Even better: Dem candidate Stansbury won by roughly 25 points -- topping Dems' rosiest expectations.
The best inner parts of that number: Stansbury did fully as well in the suburbs as Dems did in 2020, and improved Haaland's margin among Hispanic voters by several points. The former is very important for maintaining a coalition going forward; the latter suggests the dip in Hispanic support in 2020 might have been, as some suggested at the time, reflective of Hispanic voters' tendency to support the incumbent presidential party rather than any movement over time.
If you've followed pundits in recent months at all, you know the historical tendency of the party holding the White House to lose House seats in the midterms. Given that the Dem margin in the House is so narrow (220-211 after last night), many have been proceeding as if a GOP takeover after 2022 is a fait accompli. You can make the argument that the entire current Republican strategy, with its coddling of Trump and his base to the exclusion of all reality, and the flagrant voter suppression laws, is based on achieving this outcome. And that if Republicans manage to seize any sliver of power again -- no matter how slim or by what nefarious means -- we're all in trouble that may take decades to dig out from.
So...many of us are looking for reasons to believe these GOP hopes will be in vain: that they will fail to take back the House (or Senate, a different set of variables), and be left with wondering how they so miscalculated. Reasons I might cite:
1) Biden's approval ratings are quite high. There's serious correlation between the incumbent's numbers and his party's midterm performance. In the two considered-fluky midterm years where the incumbent party actually gained seats (1998 and 2002), the president had very high approvals, Bush from 9/11, Clinton from the backlash to impeachment. But there were other years where the incumbent party's losses were relatively minor -- 1962, 1986; they, too, coincided with presidents (Kennedy, Reagan) sporting high approvals. If Biden can keep his numbers anything like where they currently are, he'll be a serious help to his House members.
2) Despite Biden's solid national win, Dems lost 13 House seats last Fall. Rachel Bitecofer thinks it's because Dems, heeding COVID protocols, abandoned much local electioneering (door-to-door, especially), and Republicans benefited. Whatever the reason, it means Republicans might be closer to maxed out with their current House numbers -- they already picked up the lowest-hanging fruit, and making further gains might be more difficult than in a standard midterm where they're facing a bunch of first-term reps.
And there's a third, very hypothetical reason (one David Wasserman actually alluded to last night): what if the universe of GOP voters has been artificially inflated by Trump-and-Trump-only folk in the last two elections? Republicans are doing everything in their power to cater to these voters, but there's no evidence yet that anyone else has the galvanizing effect Trump has on these (especially) rural voters. Meantime, there's been some worry that Dems, without Trump to motivate their fear/anger, will slip back to earlier/lower-turnout patterns (especially among the young). Last night seemed to argue against that.
Here's the nightmare for the GOP: Because they've so inhaled Trumpism, the Dem base sees the entire party as just as threatening as Trump, and will turn out at the same rates they did in 2018/2020. But because Trump himself is not there, a key percentage of those who've boosted the GOP in those two cycles (plus 2016) will disappear.
That's the sort of thing that gives many of us hope -- at least, the tiny bit of hope one can take from a single special election, 17 months before the main event.
Yesterday, NM voters had a special election to fill Deb Haaland's House seat. Haaland had won the seat by 18 points last November, while Biden had won the district by 23 points (reflecting the unfortunate gap between Biden performance and local Dem performance that cost Dems multiple House seats). Special elections are notoriously hard to get voters to turn out for, but roughly half of last November's voters showed up (that's very good, if you're wondering). Even better: Dem candidate Stansbury won by roughly 25 points -- topping Dems' rosiest expectations.
The best inner parts of that number: Stansbury did fully as well in the suburbs as Dems did in 2020, and improved Haaland's margin among Hispanic voters by several points. The former is very important for maintaining a coalition going forward; the latter suggests the dip in Hispanic support in 2020 might have been, as some suggested at the time, reflective of Hispanic voters' tendency to support the incumbent presidential party rather than any movement over time.
If you've followed pundits in recent months at all, you know the historical tendency of the party holding the White House to lose House seats in the midterms. Given that the Dem margin in the House is so narrow (220-211 after last night), many have been proceeding as if a GOP takeover after 2022 is a fait accompli. You can make the argument that the entire current Republican strategy, with its coddling of Trump and his base to the exclusion of all reality, and the flagrant voter suppression laws, is based on achieving this outcome. And that if Republicans manage to seize any sliver of power again -- no matter how slim or by what nefarious means -- we're all in trouble that may take decades to dig out from.
So...many of us are looking for reasons to believe these GOP hopes will be in vain: that they will fail to take back the House (or Senate, a different set of variables), and be left with wondering how they so miscalculated. Reasons I might cite:
1) Biden's approval ratings are quite high. There's serious correlation between the incumbent's numbers and his party's midterm performance. In the two considered-fluky midterm years where the incumbent party actually gained seats (1998 and 2002), the president had very high approvals, Bush from 9/11, Clinton from the backlash to impeachment. But there were other years where the incumbent party's losses were relatively minor -- 1962, 1986; they, too, coincided with presidents (Kennedy, Reagan) sporting high approvals. If Biden can keep his numbers anything like where they currently are, he'll be a serious help to his House members.
2) Despite Biden's solid national win, Dems lost 13 House seats last Fall. Rachel Bitecofer thinks it's because Dems, heeding COVID protocols, abandoned much local electioneering (door-to-door, especially), and Republicans benefited. Whatever the reason, it means Republicans might be closer to maxed out with their current House numbers -- they already picked up the lowest-hanging fruit, and making further gains might be more difficult than in a standard midterm where they're facing a bunch of first-term reps.
And there's a third, very hypothetical reason (one David Wasserman actually alluded to last night): what if the universe of GOP voters has been artificially inflated by Trump-and-Trump-only folk in the last two elections? Republicans are doing everything in their power to cater to these voters, but there's no evidence yet that anyone else has the galvanizing effect Trump has on these (especially) rural voters. Meantime, there's been some worry that Dems, without Trump to motivate their fear/anger, will slip back to earlier/lower-turnout patterns (especially among the young). Last night seemed to argue against that.
Here's the nightmare for the GOP: Because they've so inhaled Trumpism, the Dem base sees the entire party as just as threatening as Trump, and will turn out at the same rates they did in 2018/2020. But because Trump himself is not there, a key percentage of those who've boosted the GOP in those two cycles (plus 2016) will disappear.
That's the sort of thing that gives many of us hope -- at least, the tiny bit of hope one can take from a single special election, 17 months before the main event.
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
Really interesting article on on Biden's first 100 days.
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
I don’t know. I guess? That one seems like an outlier because he was running against his own President. That really never happens.Heksagon wrote
John Garner in 1940 counts, right?
My point is, history would suggest that if Mike Pence is running, he's got a shot at getting that nomination, regardless of whatever we're being told about Trump voters hating him. Is there any candidate that could run that would have a stronger hold on the evangelical vote? Which has nothing to say about his pull as an elder statesman. That said and forgive me for being cocky, but if Mike Pence is the GOP nominee, I think he can be beaten. I have no doubt he'll do better than people think but Mike Pence is a fatal combination of boring AND a fanatic.
"How's the despair?"
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
John Garner in 1940 counts, right?
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
So, I just realized something. Joe Biden recently joined a grand tradition of Vice Presidents/Former Vice Presidents who later got their party's nomination (if not the Presidency). Over the last 120-ish years, how many Vice Presidents and Former Vice Presidents have run for their party nomination and lost?
Dan Quayle is the most famous of them. He opted out in '96 and dropped out after placing low in the '99 straw poll. I remember hearing he would run in '99 and thinking he was old news by then. Would Dan Quayle even count as mounting a Presidential campaign?
Alben Barkley and Thomas Marshall put them names into consideration at their party's conventions. But theirs was the party in power. And once you get earlier than that, the game gets so much murkier because of party rules. (does Adlai Stevenson count for 1896?)
Charles Fairbanks ran in his party's primaries in 1916 after his party split and lost in 1912. I guess Fairbanks counts. But that's really it over the course of 120-ish years. Every other time a Former Vice President made a proper go of it, they got the nomination.
I'm asking because if Mike Pence decides to run -- which he almost certainly will -- history would be on his side to get his party's nomination, wouldn't it? Regardless of however we are taking the temperature of the party.
The irony is that the other true exception to this rule (Charles Fairbanks) was also from Indiana. So if Pence lost, he would also be part of a grand tradition.
Dan Quayle is the most famous of them. He opted out in '96 and dropped out after placing low in the '99 straw poll. I remember hearing he would run in '99 and thinking he was old news by then. Would Dan Quayle even count as mounting a Presidential campaign?
Alben Barkley and Thomas Marshall put them names into consideration at their party's conventions. But theirs was the party in power. And once you get earlier than that, the game gets so much murkier because of party rules. (does Adlai Stevenson count for 1896?)
Charles Fairbanks ran in his party's primaries in 1916 after his party split and lost in 1912. I guess Fairbanks counts. But that's really it over the course of 120-ish years. Every other time a Former Vice President made a proper go of it, they got the nomination.
I'm asking because if Mike Pence decides to run -- which he almost certainly will -- history would be on his side to get his party's nomination, wouldn't it? Regardless of however we are taking the temperature of the party.
The irony is that the other true exception to this rule (Charles Fairbanks) was also from Indiana. So if Pence lost, he would also be part of a grand tradition.
"How's the despair?"
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19337
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
Yes, it's good news, but only if they use it before something else goes off the rails.
It still doesn't get them any closer to passing voting rights laws. Filibuster reform or abolishment is the only thing that will get them that.
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
"How's the despair?"
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19337
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
Both. I meant Nevada and South Carolina would be a good change under present circumstances but eventually I think we should get to a point where primaries are simultaneous throughout the electorate. Mostly though, I want uniform election laws throughout the country, an end to the electoral college and on-line voting, enough of this bullshit from reactionary state legislatures trying to drive us back into the stone age.Sabin wrote:You mean as only a "partial" fix, right? You want campaign finance reform as well as a change of the primary calendar, correct?Big Magilla wrote
Regarding potential primary changes, Nevada and South Caroline make more sense than Iowa and New Hampshire with their more diverse populations, but only as a temporary fix.
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
You mean as only a "partial" fix, right? You want campaign finance reform as well as a change of the primary calendar, correct?Big Magilla wrote
Regarding potential primary changes, Nevada and South Caroline make more sense than Iowa and New Hampshire with their more diverse populations, but only as a temporary fix.
"How's the despair?"
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19337
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: The Biden-Harris Era
Regarding potential primary changes, Nevada and South Caroline make more sense than Iowa and New Hampshire with their more diverse populations, but only as a temporary fix. What we really need is campaign reform that includes a limit to the number of ads and TV appearances a candidate is allowed to make in a given period of time as well as the amount of money he or she is allowed to spend.