The Best Site For The Latest Stories On The Election

[Res Ipsa]

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 [vulgarity] clue what it means. Look at ajax: prime example of someone [vulgarity] 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 [vulgarity] rubes in this country will eat it up. The have bricks to [vulgarity]: "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 [vulgarity] dumb. You have to tailor your slogans to speak plainly and avoid nuance.

Frankly, I think the best strategy is a local strategy. The Democratic Party has, in my opinion, concentrated far too much on national races, especially Presidential races. This was a critical year to capture as many state legislatures as possible to undo the gerrymandering that has kept the house from being representative. How did we do? Didn't capture any. The party threw gobs of money trying to defeat Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham -- money that, in my opinion, would have been better spent helping democrats beat republicans in state houses.

Conservatives have been beating the crap out of us on organizing locally for a long time now. Conservative religious communities have a head start on that because they are naturally organized through their churches. I think they've been fairly successful as translating party identification into a community that has impact on local communities.

I think that what the democratic party needs to do put more effort into local organizing tailored around specific communities. Different communities have different needs and interests, and the party needs to educate voters on how the party can help make their lives better.

This election, in my opinion, became a referendum on Trump and, specifically, his handling of the coronavirus. Apparently there were lots of voters who saw Trump as different from the Republican party, and so were comfortable rejecting Trump but not his party. And lots of people smarter than me will issue post-mortems once they've had a chance to analyze the data.

[Gunnar]

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?

Yes, I think it likely that a significant number of "Centrist Democrats" would be less Centrist and more progressive if they felt less beholden to some of their millionaire donors, and might have done better had they not tended to shy away from these issues because of that. Maybe, Schmo and RI's suspicions are right that that would not have helped in the last election, but I think it is true that the younger electorate now gaining influence and power are going to increasingly favor progressive policies, and that the more conservative Republicans are going to find themselves increasingly disadvantaged and less influential in future elections. Lindsey Graham's fears that Republicans may have little or no chance of winning any future elections, if they don't win this one, may not be entirely unfounded. I hope he is right!

[subgenius]

Everything was quiet as occasional vote updates trickled in: 2,200 ballots at 2:20 A.M.; 5,900 votes at 3:08 A.M. Suddenly, 170,000 votes — 5% of the total state count — came crashing in in one dump (there were over 340 data time series delivered, making this one 17 times larger than average). Trump had been ahead by 108,000 votes at 3:42 A.M.

[subgenius]

The "best" site?
Me thinks you be tone deaf.
what was the runner up? msnbc? the view?
geez.

[Icarus]

Everything was quiet as occasional vote updates trickled in: 2,200 ballots at 2:20 A.M.; 5,900 votes at 3:08 A.M. Suddenly, 170,000 votes — 5% of the total state count — came crashing in in one dump (there were over 340 data time series delivered, making this one 17 times larger than average). Trump had been ahead by 108,000 votes at 3:42 A.M.

Oh gee look, another incoherent ensemble of words providing no meaning, with no frame of reference, no source, not even a reference to the state being alluded to. Just a couple of strung together nuggets of data that may or may not be accurate because, well, subs never references what it is he's alluding to. We're supposed to divine his argument from this? Whatever in the hell is his point?

[Philo Sofee]

Icarus
Oh gee look, another incoherent ensemble of words providing no meaning, with no frame of reference, no source, not even a reference to the state being alluded to. Just a couple of strung together nuggets of data that may or may not be accurate because, well, subs never references what it is he's alluding to. We're supposed to divine his argument from this? Whatever in the hell is his point?

Because like a good little ignorant conservative Republican he would rather sow confusion than helpful information.

[Res Ipsa]

Everything was quiet as occasional vote updates trickled in: 2,200 ballots at 2:20 A.M.; 5,900 votes at 3:08 A.M. Suddenly, 170,000 votes — 5% of the total state count — came crashing in in one dump (there were over 340 data time series delivered, making this one 17 times larger than average). Trump had been ahead by 108,000 votes at 3:42 A.M.

Another factoid devoid of context. No evidence that it is unusual. Pure fallacy of personal incredulity. Again.

[Some Schmo]

It's quite clear people like ajax and subs do not argue to persuade... (can you imagine if that was their actual intent? Just the thought of it... ROTFLMAO)

Like most of the GOP, they are simple noise makers. Somehow, in the dimness of their intellect, they think a cacophony helps their cause. They aren't sure how, but they don't know what else to do, so noise it is!

[subgenius]

Everything was quiet as occasional vote updates trickled in: 2,200 ballots at 2:20 A.M.; 5,900 votes at 3:08 A.M. Suddenly, 170,000 votes — 5% of the total state count — came crashing in in one dump (there were over 340 data time series delivered, making this one 17 times larger than average). Trump had been ahead by 108,000 votes at 3:42 A.M.

Another factoid devoid of context. No evidence that it is unusual. Pure fallacy of personal incredulity. Again.

Not sure how "context" can escape you on this, nor am i sure how it can be dumbed down further - but as you have been so courteous to me, I will try.
Let us say you are counting votes that I am bringing to you in groups of 100. The first group I bring you has 60 votes for "A" and 40 votes for "B". The second group I bring you has 55 votes for "A" and 45 votes for "B". Next I bring you a group of 100 votes that has 65 votes for "A" and 35 votes for "B". Then I bring you a group of 500 votes and all the votes are for "B" with 0 votes for "A".
This is not difficult to understand and I have not claimed that the 500 votes are fraudulent or in error. But it is unusual, albeit unusual at this point. Ergo, why my position was that such an "unusual" occurrence merits investigation. For you to shrug your shoulders and presume "there is probably a good reason for it" is simply taking the no true scotsman fallacy to heart.
(for what it's worth, it might be a more suitable criticism of my position to claim a fallacy of false cause - but since I am not claiming cause I appreciate your alternative line of attack, except that a failure to understand is attributed to facts not known - ergo need to investigate).

[Res Ipsa]

No, Sub, context is as simple as "give me the exact same information for the previous 10 and subsequent 10 reports." You already got caught red-handed trying to pass off a similar data point as "statistical proof." In fact, it was your erroneous assumption about how vote totals are reported that created a fake anomaly.

More context: what, exactly, are we looking at? Who compiled it? Is it a compilation of votes at the state level? County level? Precinct level? Are you comparing counts of in-person votes from rural counties with mail-in ballots from large cities? You don't post a link. You don't even name the state.

100% context free. Before you go all hair on fire, demanding "investigation," it is incumbent on you to make the minimal efforts to understand what you are blathering on about.