MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
|
|
New Catalist study of 2020 election
By artappraiser on Mon, 05/10/2021 - 1:26pm |
URL:
https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/1391743309966675969
- 2948 reads
Comments
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/10/2021 - 1:33pm
Bruenig out to piss off Hillary voters & explain nothing.
Hillary went from 75+% popularity in 2012 to superhigh negatives just 3 years later, with an unprecedented, largely under-the-wire, foreign-funded-and-run social media hit job that seemed to work (google Derioaska, ffs), seeing as outcomes were tightly bound to Red and Blue divisions - where did those lines/knee-jerk voting work the best and how was it different from 2014? Women showed off being pissed in 2018 about Trump v Hillary, but no analysis of what that means. The "wisdom" was that she had an awful candidate to run again yet still lost, but after 2020 we see Trump as particularly awful yet horribly effective - who else preside over a comically (bleach?) mismanaged pandemic with hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths while getting impeached twice, yet still nearly pull off an electoral college squeaker? (what effect did Clyburne, the adult in the room, have on calming down the party to unify around a full candidate who was struggling? What effect did Joe not having to campaign, just ride out the election period in a near bunker, hardly getting those Monday morning critiques of where he failed to campaign... comparing apples to orangutans some?) Bruenig could look at the recent UK election to see Stoermer presiding over a totally collapsing Labour despite the thought that it was the too extreme Corbyn who kept the party from being relevant. He'd rather play poke-the-bear. There was a big switch to totally polarized voting, traitors vs patriots, that 2016 signifies - sure, blame it on awful Hillary, but how did it get started, how's it progressing, what's the frequency Kenneth? Let's have some journalisting in the room how about it.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/11/2021 - 1:35am
Russia/Trump cheated - with a whole lot of effort that they then covered up.
I guess it's becoming conventional wisdom that it didn't matter or didn't happen, but it totally mattered -
Hillary spent a year dodging around false info on her emails & then a drip-drip-drip from supposed "journalists" Julian Assange (such as speculating on her "Parkinsons" or other afflictions, as well as blatant lies about Seth Rich that Fox et al were successfully sued for - much of this & other FUD fed by a variety of Deripaska/Roger Stone/Assange/Macedonian crews/Mike Flynn/Steve Bannon/Manafort/Fox/Cambridge Analytica
and more & more indications that Israel, UAE & Saudis were playing their games too.
And since we see how blatantly illegal so many Republicans will go - $3.5 million campaign funds funneled for
the Jan 6 riots & related, Trump appointees at FEC still won't investigate Trump for the Stormy Daniels payoffs
on his behalf that Cohen went to jail for... that after the Russians gave Assange DNC emails & planning docs
[it's still hard to believe that "Hillary's email server" wasn't hacked - the Russians hacked the DNC, DCCC, various campaign members like Podesta through spearfishing, even Anthony "Carlos Danger" Weiner - but *never the supposedly scandalously unsecured mail server Hillary had at home!!! - https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/18/mueller-clinton-arizona-hack/] that Manafort gave Russian intelligence agent Kilimnik specific polling data in Aug 2016 on Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, 3 of which she surprisingly lost & 1 came very close - and that's not even guessing what these criminal people at the NRA hanging around Butina or otherwise showing their lack of morals may have done in tilting the election towards Trump. Whatever Mueller investigated, so much was stonewalled & likely destroyed, that it's certainly not comprehensive about what the GOP was up to - but they showed their hand at being completely willing to do anything to win.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/11/2021 - 10:14am
lots of good points in other comments as well...
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/10/2021 - 1:37pm
I think I did post elsewhere Yglesias discussing this but now here is Nate Silver is piping in that it's a possibility.
Also I've been seeing a considerable amount lately stressing how there was much higher turnout in 2020 of people who had never voted before, especially minorities of all types, and this didn't turn out like Democrats always dreamed. Wasn't just about Trump, it was about traditional non-voters voting much more idiosyncratically than was always presumed. That they were drawn to do so by Trump, either for or against, but then the rest of the ticket voting was very surprising in many ways, not reliably blue or red.
Behooves to keep in mind that this totally jives with what Trump has done to the Republican party! It's not the same old same old GOP anymore. And this article was a good reminder that some of these changes even worked to Biden's benefit. I.E. more GOP open to deficit spending, etc.
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/10/2021 - 2:13pm
Found this a MUCH better takeaway from the study with much less agenda-like spin, mho. Is especially interesting that Biden lost some urban but gained some rural and also bodes extremely well that the Dem party is growing more diverse. Also the complexity of younger voters is very interesting -
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/10/2021 - 2:24pm
Bill Scher: Democrats can keep the House in 2022. Really.
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/10/2021 - 8:23pm
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/10/2021 - 9:05pm
The Economist has a new feature, an updated weekly poll with You.gov, interactive, to compare what Americans have thought about policy and politics for every week over the past decade:
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/10/2021 - 9:22pm
in the above, note change in concern over crime and gun control vs. concern over civil rights, during Biden's first 100 days:
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/10/2021 - 9:29pm