Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Brace Yourself, Confirmed Priors Are A’Comin’

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

79 Responses

  1. 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

  2. Jaybird says:

    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

  3. Jaybird says:

    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

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

      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

  4. CJColucci says:

    A remarkably sensible take on everything. How did it slip by?Report

  5. Jaybird says:

    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

    • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

      Which is why AOC said the DNC didn’t have the core competencies to win elections.

      “There’s a reason Barack Obama built an entire national campaign apparatus outside of the Democratic National Committee,” she told the Times’ Astead Herndon. “And there’s a reason that when he didn’t activate or continue that, we lost House majorities. Because the party – in and of itself – does not have the core competencies, and no amount of money is going to fix that.”

      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

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Philip H says:

        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

        • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          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

          • Saul Degraw in reply to Philip H says:

            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

            • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

              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

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Andrew Donaldson says:

                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

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Andrew Donaldson says:

                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

              • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                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

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H says:

            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

            • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              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

              • Philip H in reply to LeeEsq says:

                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

              • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq says:

                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

              • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                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

              • Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq says:

                Howard Dean’s 50-State Strategy worked.

                It worked well.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          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

    • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird says:

      Where’s George with the stolen election theories for this one?Report

  6. Saul Degraw says:

    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

  7. Jaybird says:

    Harsh Your Mellow:

    Report

  8. Jaybird says:

    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

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

      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

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

        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

        • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          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

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

            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

            • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              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

            • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              Because Jaybird’s overwhelming psychological need is to own/troll the libs and no fact or analysis will stop him from this need?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                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

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

                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

              • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                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

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird says:

                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

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

                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

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird says:

                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

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

                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

              • Chip Daniels in reply to CJColucci says:

                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

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                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

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Why would a book written by a self interested party be any more robust than some rando on the internet?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                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

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                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

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                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

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                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

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

      Additional perspective:

      Report

  9. Marchmaine says:

    “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

  10. Fish says:

    Excellent as always, Andrew.Report

  11. Ward Vanstee says:

    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.”Report