The Best Site For The Latest Stories On The Election

[Res Ipsa]

Her explanation may be correct, but I’d want to see some analysis by a more neutral party. I’ve heard her argument a number of times, but I’m not persuaded that it’s logic many voters use. If health care is your number one issue, are you really going to say “since neither candidate is for Medicare for all, I’ll vote for the guy who wants to kill the ACA rather than the guy who wants to restore it and add a public option?”

I think this really requires a pretty fine-grained analysis using exit polling data.

[Moksha]

More Trump legal maneuvering:

https://Twitter.com/i/status/1328460387424104453

[Gunnar]

Her explanation may be correct, but I’d want to see some analysis by a more neutral party. I’ve heard her argument a number of times, but I’m not persuaded that it’s logic many voters use. If health care is your number one issue, are you really going to say “since neither candidate is for Medicare for all, I’ll vote for the guy who wants to kill the ACA rather than the guy who wants to restore it and add a public option?”

I think this really requires a pretty fine-grained analysis using exit polling data.

I'm sure you realize that it wasn't just their advocacy for universal healthcare that contributed to the progressive candidates' electoral success. It was also their positions on climate change and green new deal issues, funding for higher education, consumer protection, LGBTQ rights, etc.

[Gunnar]

Trump Lawsuit Accidentally Says There Was Huge Fraud In Counties Trump Won

In one of his ill-fated election challenge lawsuits this week, Donald Trump claimed that two Pennsylvania counties - Fayette and Luzerne - we[sic] ripe with fraud during the election. The only problem with his claim is that these two counties voted overwhelmingly for Trump. This gives you a good idea of how not threatening these challenge lawsuits are for Democrats, as Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains.

[Res Ipsa]

Her explanation may be correct, but I’d want to see some analysis by a more neutral party. I’ve heard her argument a number of times, but I’m not persuaded that it’s logic many voters use. If health care is your number one issue, are you really going to say “since neither candidate is for Medicare for all, I’ll vote for the guy who wants to kill the ACA rather than the guy who wants to restore it and add a public option?”

I think this really requires a pretty fine-grained analysis using exit polling data.

I'm sure you realize that it wasn't just their advocacy for universal healthcare that contributed to the progressive candidates' electoral success. It was also their positions on climate change and green new deal issues, funding for higher education, consumer protection, LGBTQ rights, etc.

Oh, sure. I just used healthcare as an example. But the same argument applies. How many voters, when they favor certain positions, vote for the person less likely to give it to them?

[Some Schmo]

RI and Gunnar, this is a great topic. I am truly undecided myself on which strategy is better.

I guess I come down on the side of RI, though (reluctantly and disappointedly - I've become convinced over the last four years or so that Bernie would have been slaughtered), because I'm just not that impressed with the American education system, and a large percentage of people in this country fear the "socialism" bogeyman without having a damned clue what it means. Look at ajax: prime example of someone crapping his pants daily over socialism when no threat of it exists, thinks it's something that it isn't, and something that's not really even possible in this country, given its politics.

So as a mindless GOP politician, all you have to do is thoughtlessly scream "socialism!" over and over again, without any context or substance to back it up, and the damned rubes in this country will eat it up. The have bricks to crap: "socialism" is their fiber.

I will also say, I remember mentioning the first day I heard "Defund the Police" that it was a terrible slogan, despite knowing exactly what was meant. People are damned dumb. You have to tailor your slogans to speak plainly and avoid nuance.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

More transition disasters coming from Trump’s side:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/co ... o/gchvn39/

It’s worth reading the follow-on comments, too.

- Doc

[Dr Exiled]

I disagree. I think democrats got clubbed with the "socialist" label, and Bernie would have done worse. Sadly, Trump was able pin the violent incidents during this summer's demonstrations on "the left," and I think that had an effect on centrist voters. There was a smaller percentage of undecideds this time around, but they broke pretty hard for Trump.

Yet Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow 'Squad' members, arguably the most unabashedly progressive (and dare I say "socialistic") members of Congress, all easily won reelection with quite healthy margins, while more centrist democratic candidates who sometimes seemed almost apologetic about and tended to back away from some of their more progressive or "socialistic" leanings did less well, and in some cases lost their elections

All four members of the progressive “Squad” of Democratic congresswomen have handily won re-election.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan will return to their seats in the US Congress. The four women of color, who championed ambitious climate action, healthcare for all Americans and other progressive causes while enduring frequent racism and derision from Donald Trump, will no longer be newcomers to Capitol Hill.

“Our sisterhood is resilient,” Omar tweeted.

Yes, it is sad and despicable that some Democrats got clubbed with the "socialist" label and that Trump was able to falsely pin most of this summer's demonstration on "the left", but perhaps if they had been a bit more progressive and owned it, and pushed back harder against Trump's attempts to label them as "socialist" and "communist", they would have done as well as the "squad" members.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are a number of wealthy, corporate, establishment Democrat Donors and politicians who are themselves uncomfortable with the more progressive Democrat candidates, and actively try to "primary" them out or otherwise discourage them from running.

There is a significant block of people who support democratic policies when they aren't labeled, but who reject them if they are attached to the "socialist" label. We need to clearly differentiate universal health insurance and greening the economy from the socialism of Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia. That's going to take work to undo the socialist branding by right-wing media.

Yeah I agree that it's going to take a lot of work to undo socialist branding and demonization of progressivism by right-wing media, but there are right and wrong ways to do socialism. Democratic socialism can and does do quite well in some of the most advanced, wealthiest, healthiest, happiest and even most democratic nations on earth. It is not necessarily something to fear, unless one aspires to become an obscenely wealthy oligarch for whom no amount of wealth or power is enough to satisfy, like Trump!

I think this makes a lot of sense. Jimmy Dore on YouTube pushes this idea. He often cites that most want Medicare for all, a green new deal, and want to end the wars. Centrist democrats, beholding to their billionaire donors, shy away from these issues and didn't do well in the election. Also, there are a lot who don't vote and probably would be excited by a Bernie Sanders type of candidate because of the above issues. Perhaps its time for the democrats to repudiate Clinton's "third way" that his now Trump supporting guru, Dick Morris, invented?

[Some Schmo]

Finally, Trump concedes! (Well, not really)

Awesome edit.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Just a reminder that if the Trump admin is good at one thing it's failing to find evidence of their voter fraud claims:

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-ne ... oter-fraud

From 2018:

"Trump Panel Finds No Voter Fraud

Court filings show that in spite of the president’s claim that millions of people voted illegally, his recently disbanded commission found no evidence of voter fraud."

- Doc