Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Brace Yourself, Confirmed Priors Are A’Comin’
Now that we have the fireworks and victory speech out of the way, it is time to take stock and measure of the two year odyssey that was Election 2020. But first, a piece of in-house business.
So, if your question was “why no Harsh Your Mellow Mondays the last few months?” Well, I have an answer for you.
By its very nature, doing a posting every Monday under such a title is going to lean towards the negative, the sarcastic, the occasionally cathartically rhetorical romping over serious issues for giggles. With the tenor of the presidential campaign, and the really dark ugliness that was coming along with it, it just didn’t feel right to pile on. Not that there was any illusion the bonfire of election year vanity wouldn’t burn just as bright without this particular log on it, but sometimes we must do the small things to live with our own selves. To the point, this time last weekend several draft posts were being outlined, including one in case of social unrest and violence we saw periodically all summer broke out Tuesday night. Thankfully, that piece can be File 13’d for now, at least.
So now that the Republic will indeed stand a while longer, the time is right to get back work. And, my word, are the fields of unjustified mellows on various things ripe for harvesting. Let’s get after it.
[HM1] The Election Lessons Of Confirming All Your Priors Correct
The question then: in life what do you do with new information?
Right now, the analysis of the 2020 election is in full swing. The fun part of data and statistics is you can make a pretty enough chart to make those numbers tell whatever story you want. Thus, there will be a bunch of folks who just take what happened over the last week and the almost 2 years of 2020 Election Cycle and distill it down to whatever their drink of choice was anyway.
But that is affirmation, not information.
I’ll start with myself. I was wrong about a whole heaping lot of things in this election. Way back before he even got in the race, I thought Joe Biden running was not a good idea on multiple levels. I thought he would have a hard time winning, I thought he would be divisive to his party, I thought he would struggle to make headway and keep up.
I was wrong on a lot of that. In one of those history rhymes sort of ways, Biden’s path had a few similarities to Trump 2016. All the faults, flaws, and gaffes of Ol’ Joe were muddled down and rendered mostly irrelevant by the faults, flaws, and issues of his opponent President Donald J. Trump. Just as charges of corruption, greed, and sexual scandals of Trump just didn’t stick well coming from the Clinton political machine that had plenty of all three in the mortar mix of its own power foundation, Joe Biden’s rank political normalness went from liability to asset against an increasingly Trumpian Donald Trump. Like with Hillary in 2016, the deciding factor turned out to be putting down the disliked opponent far above anything about the candidate who was serving as the vehicle to do so.
The first presidential debate this year really showed a dynamic that was at play far more than usual politics and policies. The bar had been set so low by Team Trump with relentless attacks that all Joe Biden had to do was survive on stage without drooling or falling over and he would chalk up a win. President Trump ranting and raving for 90 minutes while Joe was Joe only further highlighted that months and years of buildup of Trump the invincible didn’t even make it past a string of “c’mon, man” and “here’s the deal” parries from Biden. It was so bad even most die-hard Trump supporters, if not saying so out loud, sensed the president was too far off the map and needed to reel it back in. He did so in the second debate, showing that even his, the densest of bubbles, could be pierced with the reality of bad reviews. That debate was a push, which when you are trailing like Donald Trump was, you lost.
But then we get the actual data of the election results, and things really get complicated. Joe Biden won this election, and when they are done tallying everything, he will have an EC victory close to what Trump did or better, with millions more votes and a wider margin. The Biden/Harris ticket will enter the White House with the highest vote total in American history. So clearly, they have a mandate, right?
It’s complicated. To his credit, and whatever else you think of President Trump, he frankly shocked politicos and pollsters and turned out more voters than he did in 2016. Millions more. There is no trophy for second place, but election analysis is going to be chewing on the fact that a wounded, underdog, highly divisive president in Donald J. Trump surpassed the vaunted Obama vote totals as well and received the second most votes ever in an American presidential election. Folks who thought Trump 2016 with 63 million votes was a fluke are going to have to reckon with 71 million Trump voters in 2020 and what the implications and lessons of that might be.
To be clear, there is limited value in the “understand X voters at Y diner in Z location” type anecdotal think pieces that fill plenty of content but don’t really mean anything, let alone change anything. But sober thought should be put into the fact that when a political constituency loses an election they are not going to magically disappear. Especially one that grew by 8 million votes in defeat against almost all predictions. The victorious Democratic Party will now be looking to how a candidate whose aspirations were left for dead after Iowa managed to turn out record numbers of voters.
Here’s the part folks might want to focus on in that analysis: A lot of those answers have to do with Donald Trump…but not all of them, and maybe not nearly as many as folks think right now. Donald Trump didn’t lead anyone anywhere they didn’t already want to go, and anyone thinking the effects of the last four years will just simmer down now are fooling themselves.
As we consume the fire hose of election recaps, reax, and postmortems, it will be important to discern who and what outlets are actually working through the data and events as they are and happened, and who is just churning the same old, same old and picking the parts that fit their respective narratives. The former will be worth spending time on, while the latter will once again be shocked and shaken by the unexpected results of 2022, since whatever they might be, they will be unprepared for them.
The victory of Donald Trump in 2016 proved to some that Trumpian Populism was the future. His loss will prove to those same folks Trumpian Populism is the future.
The Blue Wave of 2018 proved to some the need for the Democratic party to be more progressive in candidates and policy. The lack of a Blue Wave in 2020 will prove to those same folks the Democratic party needs to be more progressive in candidates and policy.
Here, you can play along at home:
The [insert prior here] proved that [insert preferred example of said prior here]. The lack of [insert same prior here] in 2020 means [insert wildest dream outcome here].
Fun, ain’t it?
But discerning of the times we live in, it is not.
[HM2] Briefly, About Election Fraud, Or Lack Thereof
Some of you might need to sit down for this part.
Voter fraud is not why Donald Trump lost the 2020 Election.
Oh, there will be instances of it, as there always is. Some out of malice, a few will possibly prove criminal, and a bunch of bad stuff that is the byproduct of incompetence. Here’s what we need to do: ignore what people are saying — especially in social media — and look at what they are doing. And the Trump administration is not doing anything to show they can prove what they are saying:
Republicans have made claims of election irregularities in five states where President-elect Joe Biden leads in the vote count, alleging in lawsuits and public statements that election officials did not follow proper procedures while counting ballots in Tuesday’s election.
So far, they have gone 0 for 5.
Since Election Day, President Trump has repeatedly claimed that a broad conspiracy of misdeeds — apparently committed in both Republican and Democratic states — had cost him the election.
“I WON THE ELECTION, GOT 71,000,000 LEGAL VOTES,” Trump tweeted on Saturday, after returning to the White House from his Virginia golf course. “BAD THINGS HAPPENED WHICH OUR OBSERVERS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SEE.” Trump’s campaign has encouraged donors to contribute to a legal-defense fund so he can fight the cases in court.
But in the lawsuits themselves, even Trump’s campaign and allies do not allege widespread fraud or an election-changing conspiracy.
Instead, GOP groups have largely focused on smaller-bore complaints in an effort to delay the counting of ballots or claims that would affect a small fraction of votes, at best.
And, even then, they have largely lost in court.
The reason: Judges have said the Republicans did not provide evidence to back up their assertions — just speculation, rumors or hearsay. Or in one case, hearsay written on a sticky note.
The result has been a flurry of filings that Trump has cited as a reason to avoid conceding defeat — but, so far, have done nothing to prevent the defeat itself.
Two court cases in Pennsylvania that the president “won” weren’t exactly putting down wide-ranging conspiracies of fraud at all, with one ruling that observers could be closer to the count and the other where SCOTUS Justice Alito ordered the state to segregate ballots that had already been segregated.
In Michigan, the much discussed “software issue” turned out to be human error, and only affected the reported numbers of votes, not the actual official vote count itself.
Here’s the thing though: folks who really believe there to be a widespread conspiracy are going to latch onto every story and instance of proof and bore in on the minute instances while ignoring the entire picture. If you want to strap up and crusade against election fraud, I’m all with you. Every single instance of malicious fiddling to our election should be prosecuted with great prejudice. Of course, there are bad actors out there doing illegal things. There is also plenty of good, old fashioned incompetence. But what you don’t have is enough of either to explain the still-growing margin of Joe Biden’s victory.
Sorry, I meant Trump needs all three. Spaced for a minute.
— (((AG))) (@AGHamilton29) November 9, 2020
A few hundred votes, or even a few thousand to extrapolate out for the record number of ballots, still isn’t the tens of thousands the president would need to change the results. It’s done. He’s lost. He lost fairly.
As for those complaining about the vote counting in Democratic strongholds like Detroit, Atlanta, and Philadelphia, let’s just have a grown folk talk about that right quick:
The same goes as before, if there is illegal activity let’s prosecute the hell out of it.
If you are a Republican political strategist and your hopes rest on places that you don’t even bother to try and compete in, you’re an idiot.
Questionable vote counting in Philly and Wayne County, MI will be a lot like violence in Chicago: a really handy talking point on social media for the right to go “whatabout them over there” that they will do absolutely nothing in real life about until they need to whip it out again in a future argument. The hypocrisy of “Democrat run cities” will be the shield to block all attacks of actually caring about those places, except when it suits them. Nice little doom loop going there, blaming a one-party rule system in those areas that — while rightly deserving criticism — they also need to stay as it is lest they have to actually do anything about it themselves and start shouldering the blame for urban issues that have been so since there were cities to have such issues in.
When you play competitive sports, you understand as a player that certain places are going to officiate the game differently. Changed strike zones and “home cooking” ref’ing when you’re at the other team’s place is part of game. You can whine and cry about the bad call at the end of the game all you want, but if you let it come down to needing a call to go your way at the end, there were legion things that you did wrong to leave it to chance in the first place. Winners adapt and figure it out. If you want to win a national election, figure out how to win nationally.
Donald Trump lost states in the rust belt he won in 2016, flipped states against him like Arizona, and let states a Republican hasn’t lost in a generation, like Georgia, slip away. You want to blame someone, it starts — and ends — with Donald Trump.
[HM3] Presented Without Further Comment
It was a big day for Four Seasons Total Landscaping in suburban Philadelphia, which unexpectedly hosted Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyers, shouting conspiracy theories and vowing lawsuits in a parking lot near a sex shop and a crematorium. https://t.co/amYAXtn5kM
— Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (@PittsburghPG) November 9, 2020
[HM4] Meanwhile…The Answer is This Sucks
A year that has seemed to take far more than it gave, has taken TV legend Alex Trebek:
Thinking about this moment. America sure loved you, Alex. ❤️ pic.twitter.com/DdidbyFibb
— Gretchen Lynn (@Bubola) November 8, 2020
Jeopardy and its timeslot partner Wheel of Fortune were just an institution in my family. He hosted Jeopardy for 36 years, and since I turned 40 this year that means for as long as I can remember Alex Trebek was on a TV screen darn near every weekday. When you grow up in a house with two educators as parents, getting the answers blurted out first and correct was an accomplishment in the Donaldson household. My late Aunt June who lived right beside us Up Yonder was even more religious about it. If you were mid-sentence or whatever come ten minutes to 7pm EST that’s just too bad cause Aunt June was going to start walking to her house, having time for one more cigarette on the way, and be ready to shout at the TV for 30 minutes.
Thing about Jeopardy, though, there is no denying the cultural value of 36 years of an unmeasurable amount of information downloaded into folks’ homes long before the internet did so, and the modern information age did nothing to slow down the experience of Alex being the coolest guy in the room as everyone else in the country scrambled to try and think of the questions to the answers. What a great experience it was. Rest in Peace, Alex Trebek, and thank you.
HM3: Also
https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/11/09/man-featured-at-giuliani-press-conference-is-a-sex-offender-1335241
The first person Rudy Giuliani, the attorney for President Donald Trump, called up as a witness to baseless allegations of vote counting shenanigans in Philadelphia during a press conference last week is a sex offender who for years has been a perennial candidate in New Jersey.Report
Kohole, on the Twitters, made a great point about the Four Seasons Landscaping thing.
If he had done that sort of thing deliberately for four years, he’d have been re-elected.
As it is, it’s kind of a too-crazy-to-describe thing. Like, if they talked about doing that sort of thing in the writer’s room for Veep, it’d have been swatted down as being too crazy.
It’s just nuts. It’s just nuts.
It’s just nuts.Report
Given how often Trump has stiffed small businesses for the work they’ve done for him, he’d probably stay true to form and stiff any small business that hosted an event for him.Report
Somehow this story flew under my radar over the weekend. There isn’t much (really anything) I’ll miss about this administration but these farcical moments… man they were great. They say so much more about the Trump presidency and our society than a million self-serious ‘democracy dies in darkness’ pieces ever could.Report
And now I’m seeing that the poll watcher who spoke was a sex offender from another jurisdiction. Truly sublime.Report
Oh, this made me laugh:
Report
That’s excellent!Report
My mellow gets harshed when I read stuff like this:
What the hell?
How in the world…?
Like, they just came out and *SAID* it!Report
They said that Biden won’t treat the press as his enemy. You’re choosing to read it the other way.Report
I have to actively not just react to everything he does on Twitter, because part of Stelter’s raison d’être is to be the media’s inner monologue but out loud, so he does crap like this on purpose so he can write about how the right reacts to it. I keep thinking he will grow out of it, as he approaches his middle 30’s, but we will see.Report
A remarkably sensible take on everything. How did it slip by?Report
Esper fired via twitter: https://twitter.com/CBCAlerts/status/1325861409360588806?s=20Report
I’m waiting for Bill Barr to be next.Report
Nothing like a post election loss firing spree for………reasons. Just a totally normal thing to do.Report
More mellow harshing:
There were a *LOT* of weird dynamics in the election, though.
Trumpy ripples still moving.
It’s way, waaaaaay too early to think about 2022.
Or 2024.
But, come, oh… January 2022? February? We’ll probably want to remember stuff like this.Report
Which is why AOC said the DNC didn’t have the core competencies to win elections.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_b-gdnnews&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1604831956Report
Note, this is for a state representative. Not for the House of Representatives. An intraparty fight is something a troll like Jaybird wants now. It is nit what the Democratic Party needs right now and we shouldn’t get all stooked into it. AOC is great but we also need more moderate districts that are won by people like Spanberger and Lamb. They are not going to win via AOC tactics and AOC would not win in their districts.Report
So late last week I had the occasion to chat with former OT writer Mike Dwyer. We touched on what happened in KY and he opined that part of why Mitch McConnell is headed back to the Senate is that in KY, LTC Amy McGrath was looked upon as “that socialist dyke” even though she’s married, a former Marine, and ran on a platform that deviated not one jot from Joe Biden’s. Sadly I have to agree with him.
My Point about AOC is she is saying the DNC could have (and probably should have) recognized after McGrath lost her attempt at a House seat that she was not the person to unseat McConnell, even though she could and did attract a great many big donors. Another great example is here in the Mississippi 4th Congressional District where Our Teapublican Congressman faced no Democratic opposition, even at the primary stage. AOC’s compliant is not that Democrats didn’t recruit a raft of people like here (yet), it’s that the DNC didn’t play the game.
And I agree with her.Report
Too many Democrats see McConnell as too much of a prize and Dwyer was the person who screamed/typed out “But Democrats are the crap team” earlier this year when he mealy mouth admitted that Trump was not a good President but was also looking for reasons to continue voting GOP. Plus he always got defensive for cops during BLM posts.
My view is that we should write off the Kentucky Senate races until McConnell dies and possibly after that. It is a rural and socially conservative state. They are not hoping for socialism or even an enhanced welfare state. They are as safely Republican as California is safely Democratic. But some prizes are so tantalizing and McConnell is unfortunately one of them. That money should have been spent elsewhere.Report
You’d be amazed at the people who got defensive for cops during BLM posts!
(And Biden ran on “vote for me, but vote GOP down ticket… it’s okay”.)Report
Serious question here, Saul, I want your answer and opinion: What about Texas? It is the eternal “prize” as far as flipping states go, is statistically and demograhically “get-able”, yet the money outlays there are just bonkers, between Beto’s senate run, and Democrats spent something like $54 million on the Texas Legislature with nothing to show for it, Cruz and Cornyn both survive – the latter handily. You do now have Allen West running the state GOP, IMO a questionable move but we will see. You good with the efforts in Texas and that dream that seems so close but so far away for Team Blue?Report
That is a good question. We did better there than normally but it was obviously not enough. The good news is that we held the districts we one in 2018 and we might gain one more with Texas-24 (it is a slim lead for the GOP candidate now). I would say Texas is slowly turning purple but there are still tons of conservatives there. Since it is more urban-suburban than Kentucky, the effort might be worth it more.Report
In 2010, the GOP won a lot of seats in the House and then lost in 2012. Wave elections tend to produce narrow victories in a lot of edge districts. Some of which are going to revert in the next election. Spanberger and Lamb held onto their districts. Katie Porter held on to hers. All three ended up receiving more than 50 percent of the vote. The Democrats flipped two districts in North Carolina and one district in Georgia. These are the districts that are shifting blue.
Democrats also won 50 plus percent of all the races that went for the House. This indicates gerrymandering is still saving Republicans but good luck making the usual suspects recognize any of this instead of being the peanut gallery.Report
It’s a redistricting year!
Now there is an opportunity to put things *RIGHT*.
We should come back to this in 2022.
Lemme guess: “The President’s party always does poorly in off-year elections.”Report
It may be a bit unfair to use Mike’s observation as a complete explanation but if he’s anywhere close to being correct, that Kentucky voters rejected McGrath because she was a “socialist dyke” that just adds further evidence that the Republican party has centered itself on identity politics which are irreconcilable.
It also shows why we should ignore the calls to move rightward or moderate or whatever other euphemisms people want to use.
There are zero GOP voters that McGrath could have flipped, no matter what policy she did or didn’t support.
Her identity was all that was needed for them to decide to vote against her.Report
The Democratic Party shouldn’t move rightward but tactics, rhetoric, and policy positions that AOC can pull off in her district aren’t going to work well everywhere. Running district appropriate candidates shouldn’t be seen as moving rightward or moderating.Report
I agree it shouldn’t be seen as moving rightward. But it should be seen as competence. And that’s what she was talking about.Report
I agree but its interesting how nationalized elections are now.
How many people who voted against McGrath were thinking they were giving a middle finger to AOC?Report
At least some of them did but I’m not really sure how many McConnell voters knew who AOC is. Assuming that every Republican voter in Kentucky sees AOC as boogey-woman because Fox is a very online type of political mistake.
Just because elections are national, doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party can run each district the same. Our voters want more different things than the typical Republican voter.Report
Howard Dean’s 50-State Strategy worked.
It worked well.Report
The intraparty fight will happen or it won’t.
And it will happen whether or not I want it to.
I do think that, come 2022, we should come back and look at the dynamics of this election. If we don’t understand them, we may find ourselves in a place where we’re accusing critics of being saboteurs.Report
Where’s George with the stolen election theories for this one?Report
Mary Trump on what Trump will be like for the next two moths: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/mary-trump-on-the-end-of-uncle-donald-all-he-has-now-is-breaking-things
“This is what Donald’s going to do: he’s not going to concede, although who cares. What’s worse is he’s not going to engage in the normal activities that guarantee a peaceful transition. All he’s got now is breaking stuff, and he’s going to do that with a vengeance. I’ve always known how cruel he can be. Shortly after the 2016 election, when I’d see him being particularly cruel, I would think about how he treated my father [Fred Trump Jr, Donald’s older brother, who died of alcoholism at 43]. He took away our family health insurance after his father, my grandfather, died – this was when my nephew needed round-the-clock nursing care, which we then couldn’t afford. That is the kind of man he is.”Report
Harsh Your Mellow:
Report
He’d be good.
Colbert would be amazing, but it would be a big step down.Report
Ken Jennings! Everybody loves him!Report
Pity Sean Connery passed as well…Report
Suck it, Trebek.Report
Whomever they pick, if Sir Sean were still around I’d have him ceremonially host the first post-Trebek game. Alas.Report
OMG can you imaging Jennings in that role! That would be amazing. That dude has so much natural charisma, combined with his humility — I’m all for it.
Did you know that Jennings was Brandon Sanderson’s roommate at BYU. Those must have been interesting conversations.Report
He’s handsome (but not, you know, crazily so), he’s off-the-charts charming, he communicates intelligence (and it’s backed up by his wins), and he’s got a pinch of mischievousness. On top of all that, he’s got a connection to Trebek and a connection to the show and it wouldn’t feel jarring to see him there saying that he wishes he wasn’t.
The only thing I don’t know is if he’d want the job.Report
They had a whole Ken Jennings category today. He’s going to be the guy, barring some dream host falling into their lap.
Apparently, they’ve got Trebek shows in the can until Xmas, so they’re good for awhile.Report
When Trebek took over as host in ’84, game show hosts were plentiful. He previously had hosted High Rollers, hardly a high brow show. Now, there’s no bench of hosts because the genre has gone almost completely moribund.
Jeopardy needs a charismatic host who has come intellectual cred. I nominate Drew Magary.Report
That would probably be better than Drew Carey.Report
Worst possible hosts. Go!
Neil deGrasse TysonReport
So you start a contest and then immediately win. Good job!Report
Donald Trump needs a job and has game show host experienceReport
Too bad we don’t have the notable comment feature anymore!Report
After a recount, it has been discovered that Kolohe has won.Report
Bill O’Reilly was still available.Report
They should have a bunch of guest hosts for a while. Each for a week at a time.
Jeopardy, with Dwayne Johnson!Report
I didn’t know that Republicans picked up seats in California until just now.
I didn’t know that they hadn’t increased seats since 1998.
Report
Thinking about this, this is good.
Remember us relitigating 2016 over and over and over and over again? One of the things I argued was that Clinton could have run in such a way that would have been substantially more appealing to moderates at the cost of a few percentage points in NY and CA. Those percentage points lost in CA and NY would pay dividends at The Blue Wall.
Biden did just that.Report
How did you manage to eliminate other variables like the gender difference, the track record of the Administration, COVID, the millions of new voters who weren’t around in 2016, the millions who are no longer around, etc.?
For that matter, what evidence is there that Biden is somehow more “moderate” than Clinton? It could easily be argued that he is more leftist. Or just exactly the same, depending on the issued being studied.
‘Report
Well, the main thing I’m looking at is “Biden Won/Clinton Lost” and assuming that “Winning in 2016 was possible” and working from there.
What counterfactuals for Biden’s win ought I be using instead?Report
The fact that virtually every variable that was in play in 2016 has changed at least slightly should give anyone pause before making conclusions about a counterfactual 2016.
Clinton and Biden were competing against different adversaries with different electorates.
But one conclusion we can probably draw safely, is that both elections were very close, and could have gone the other way with just a tiny change in variables.Report
I suppose not going out of his way to alienate people he wants to vote for him was a step in the right direction.
(Though the “you ain’t black” thing was a terribly weird joke.)Report
Because Jaybird’s overwhelming psychological need is to own/troll the libs and no fact or analysis will stop him from this need?Report
Thanks for the psychoanalysis.
To be honest, though, the fact that there is a weird denial that any mistakes were made and, if forced, we concede that nothing is perfectly perfect in this vale of tears and so focusing on whether any mistakes were made is an attempt to “own” the “libs” doesn’t really convince me that my perspective is significantly flawed to the point that I need to change it permanently to a new one.
The failure to properly address Clinton’s failures (which fell outside of the “is anything perfect?” band of acceptable tolerances) indicates to me a deep problem.
Biden was able to overcome the ball and chain clamped to his leg because he is pretty charismatic and Trump massively (MASSIVELY) screwed up the global pandemic.
I see this failure of the democrats to address their internal contradictions as bad. It will result in bad things happening. Like “another Trump” level of bad things happening.
And maybe the next one won’t be both stupid and lazy.Report
1. 76 plus million people voted for Biden compared to 71.5 million people who voted for Trump.
2. In the House, Democrats received nearly 72.3 million votes and Republicans received nearly 68.9 million votes. Yet Republicans flipped 8 seats so far.
A reasonable conclusion might be that some of the districts Democrats won in 2018 were flukes and likely to return to the R column. And/ Or that there is gerrymandering that makes it favorable to the Republicans unless you have a margin of victory that is the nearly 10 million Democrats had in 2018.
Instead, your instinct is to troll and say “Ha Ha” to Democrats like Nelson Muntz on the Simpsons because we did not gain any seats in Texas and lost some in California according to the tweet above.
This is why I think you basically exist to “own the libs”. There is no neutral analysis. At best it is an indifference to the anti-democratic nature of American politics because you don’t feel threatened by it or because you think you benefit from it.
3.Report
I’ve got a little bit of experience of working with people who argue that they didn’t do anything wrong and they don’t need to change. (Perhaps they fall back to the whole “well, it’s not a perfect world…” stance.)
Gotta say: I’ve yet to meet someone who was accurate when they said that.Report
The failure to properly address Clinton’s failures (which fell outside of the “is anything perfect?” band of acceptable tolerances) indicates to me a deep problem.
You keep saying that. Lots of people in a lot of places addressed Hillary’s mistakes. And the proof is in the pudding: Biden didn’t repeat them.
Maybe you’re unhappy with the way the discussion went in this tiny corner of the internet, but the world is a much bigger place.Report
And the proof is in the pudding: Biden didn’t repeat them.
That’s what I said above!
Maybe you’re unhappy with the way the discussion went in this tiny corner of the internet, but the world is a much bigger place.
Well, I’m not *UNHAPPY* with it but I’m certainly not overjoyed. To the extent that we’re an outpost of the future, I don’t like where I see us being in 2-4 years.Report
I notice — you’re big on “noticing” — that you don’t actually dispute that Hillary’s mistakes were discussed by lots of people in lots of places. Do you really think that Biden didn’t repeat them because of his innate political genius, rather than because a lot of serious people gave a lot of serious thought — just not here — to what Hillary did wrong in 2016? I suspect that you wanted a Hillary’s Failures Truth Commission and Re-Education Camp and were disappointed that you couldn’t recruit enough camp counselors. Looking back, it’s not surprising considering how the recruiting process started out. And I can’t blame you for being disappointed in the way the discussion you wanted to have went, but badly begun is poorly done.Report
I know that many people were discussing Hillary’s mistakes *HERE*! I was one of them!
It was the pushback that I got that I found interesting and worth noticing. Whether the Berniebros agreed with me was less interesting to me.
Do you really think that Biden didn’t repeat them because of his innate political genius, rather than because a lot of serious people gave a lot of serious thought — just not here — to what Hillary did wrong in 2016
I think that Biden has a lot of upsides that Hillary did not have and Hillary had downsides that Biden does not have.
I also think that Clinton made mistakes that Biden did not make.
I suspect that you wanted a Hillary’s Failures Truth Commission and Re-Education Camp and were disappointed that you couldn’t recruit enough camp counselors.
No. It’s more that I thought that Clinton made avoidable mistakes that fell outside of the “is anything perfect in this fallen world?” bands and the fact that folks wouldn’t acknowledge/embrace that struck me as increasing the likelihood of these mistakes being repeated.
But it’s good that Biden avoided making the avoidable mistakes that Clinton made. Good for him!
It got him elected, I think.Report
But here’s my problem with all this amateur punditry:
There are a lot of conclusions being drawn without much in the way of rigorous analysis and data being presented.
There are a number of variables active in any race:
Good/ Bad Campaign strategy;
Demographic makeup;
Voter movement on issues;
Turnout/ Enthusiasm;
As well as many others.
Its rare for pundits, including the commenters here, to separate out their own desires and prejudices from their analysis, which is why they call it the Pundit Fallacy.
For any of the explanations offered here to explain the 2016 and 2020 results, someone could with just as much logic, offer an alternative explanation.Report
There’s plenty of kinds of alternative explanations, though.
The alternative explanations that flatter the excuse maker are one kind. (“I trusted too much. I gave my opponents too much credit. My heart was too big. I love my country too much.”)
The alternative explanations that take into account stuff that happened in real time and say “okay, this was bad” and then, months later, can say “okay, that was bad”, and then when a book is written about it by the person who made the mistake devotes a chapter to it and admits that, yes, it was bad, seem to be more robust.
That’s what needs to be poked and prodded with the alternative explanations. Do the alternative explanations actually explain?Report
Why would a book written by a self interested party be any more robust than some rando on the internet?Report
I imagine that the participant in the deed has insight and perspective that isn’t available to those outside.
It’s when you can take multiple perspectives and put them together and see whether they are coherent with each other that you can say “okay, this is a robust description”.
Now that doesn’t mean that it’s 100% accurate to the 4th significant digit…
But it’s good enough for Popper.Report
But there are also multiple perspectives that offer alternative explanations, such as that Clinton lost due to misogyny whereas Biden didn’t have that handicap.
Or that the composition of the 2020 electorate has a few million more Democratic-leaning voters.
Or that the cumulative weight of Trumps craziness has lead to a small but significant portion of his voters peeling off.
Or, or or any one of a dozen other explanations.
If there was a consensus among historians and political scientists, I might find that robust.
But right now all we have are a scattering of opinions, largely without much data to support them.Report
Well, at that point, we can look at stuff like “are these alternative explanations ones that flatter the speaker?”
And weight accordingly.
If we wanted to argue that Trump in 2016 was an unknown quantity with unknown upsides and in 2020 he was a known quantity with all-too-known downsides, that’d be an interesting argument!
But it doesn’t really address whether mistakes were made in 2016, and if so, whether these mistakes were outside of the “imperfect world” band, and, if so, whether these outside mistakes were avoidable.
So I’d want to look at the argument in the context of the previous election (and make the fundamental assumption that we can know things).Report
If we wanted to make an analysis that was entirely free of data and fact, sure.
You’re trying to construct a logic, but without any data to support even your starting assumption.
Data like, how many untapped votes were left on the table?
Zero? Ten million? Were they in the swing states or in California?
Without knowing this, you don’t really even know if a mistake was made, much less what it was.Report
Additional perspective:
Report
“The [insert prior here] proved that [insert preferred example of said prior here]. The lack of [insert same prior here] in 2020 means [insert wildest dream outcome here].”
Yes, but my priors are correct.Report
And with that, there is nothing more to be said.Report
Quite so.Report
Excellent as always, Andrew.Report
Thank you FishReport
A reporter asked President Trump if he was concerned that one recent poll had 54 of likely voters casting their ballots for Joe Biden. The president confidently responded that the other 56 were voting for him.Bernie, Joe and Donald are on a Zoom call. Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump secretly have regular Zoom conversations. Bernie: “I dreamed last night that God spoke to me. He said that he wanted me to be president.†Joe: “That’s funny. I had the exact same dream.†Donald: “I don’t remember talking to either of you last night.â€Report