Keyboard Shortcuts
Likes
- M-Powered
- Messages
Search
|
Re: Biden's plans
jim twist
and the majority of people arrested are simply taken into custody , SO WHAT MARVIN?
On Thursday, January 21, 2021, 10:18:10 PM CST, mrvnchpmn <chapman@...> wrote:
The great majority of people who were tried and convicted in the Spanish Inquisition suffered civil penalties - not execution. Marvin with a comment like that? you have the unmitigated nerve to call Joe Biden dumb .....ROFLMAO?
On Thursday, January 21, 2021, 06:01:16 PM CST, mrvnchpmn <chapman@...> wrote:
The Spanish Inquisition was a non event if you actually look at the statistics - more people were burned at the stake in France than in Spain. The officer had his knee on the man's neck because that was what he was taught - you could easily recommend different training - but sometimes there is no alternative to doing what you are trained to do. Marvin About like there was no shooting during the Spanish Inquisition , just burning at the stake. The officer's knee was on the man's neck for what 8 minutes as I recall.?
On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 04:36:00 PM CST, mrvnchpmn <chapman@...> wrote:
Incidentally there was no shooting involved in the George Floyd case - it was an officer engaging in a control move taught at the academy. It would be a good idea to review the training - but also look at the autopsy - which showed Floyd with high levels of methamphatamine in his blood - otherwise known as he was high as a kite. Marvin I don't understand your perspective.? How can times be so good if Trump is the worst president in history? Up till 2020, the country was in excellent shape, despite the Democrats' incessant effort to unseat Trump since he started his term. Unemployment was at record lows, the stock market was at record highs, we were disengaging from wars, not entering them, and black employment was the highest in history and the black/white wage gap was at its lowest.? Trump dealt succesfully with North Korea, got us out of Syria, and increased sanctions on Russia and Iran.? He put other members of NATO on notice to pay their bills and got us out of counterproductive groups like WHO and the Paris Accords, renegiotiated the failed NAFTA agreement while dealing with China and its unfair trade policies. Coronavirus set the world back, and Trump's administration dealt with coronavirus by closing borders and commissioning vaccines in record time by cutting red tape.? Despite news reports to the contrary, the US is not the world's worst country, nor is it worse than the EU. ?(Most of Africa doesn't record deaths at all, China's rate of covid is suspiciously low, as are many other Asian countries that basically do nothing about it, so you can only compare the US with other western nations.) The George Floyd protests were caused by police shootings, which were the result of the militarization of the police force, which occurred under Obama's watch and since 9/11.? The protests also contributed significantly to the spread of covid, as the graphs clearly show. The Democrats scarcely campaigned; ?Biden suddenly emerged from the back of the pack late in the primaries, which was a backroom deal if there ever was one, and the party's strategy was to raise discontent of an already stricken nation by blaming everything on Trump. Most Democrats won't agree with the preceding, and some moderates buy into all that as well, but they should ask themselves when were times better? I wasn't around between the Civil War and the Great Depression, and WWII, or the Korean War but came of age with the Red Scare, when McCarthyism took hold, followed by the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin Wall, and everything else associated with the Cold War.? Then we had the Civil Righs unrest, political assassinations, during the War in Vietnam and all those protests, Watergate, the economic crisis of the Carter years when we saw everyone's wealth destroyed by the inflationary recession, and ?brief respite during the Reagan years, followed by the first invasion of Iraq, and the Cliinton years with all its scandals, the specter of AIDS, and the failure of NAFTA, and Chinese influence through campaign financing.? During those years, we also say American factories close and the middle class gutted as American companies moved production to China with impunity.? Under Clinton, the dotcom bubble built up unabated with day trading that ruined millions of retirement savings. The GW Bush administration was also an awful period in our history, starting with 9/11, the ill-conceived and hastily written Patriot Act that eroded civil rights, followed by the neverending war in Afghanistan and the occupation in Iraq.? Domestically, we had the housing bubble, which crashed at the end of Bush's second term, ruining the equity again of millions of Americans. Obama's years weren't exactly copacetic, either, as Obama dithered, keeping Afghanistan and Iraq festering and bleeding our economy dry while his anti-business executive orders quashed business expansion, making the slowest recovery in history.? During Obama's watch, the opoid crises festered, while the Affordable Care Act, which gave away medical care to millions of poor Americans, made medical care unaffordable for privately insured middle class Americans like small businesses, which were largely ignored during the Obama years, despite being the biggest drivers to our economy. So, aside from the Reagan years, which were meh, not great, what period would you choose to live in that was better than the first three years of the Trump administration?? I'll agree that Trump was probably the worst orator in all that time, and was, personally about the most abrasive and unlikable person to ascend to the presidency since Truman, but who cares when the economy is stable and everyone has a job and there aren't any wars? Ed On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, Christian Nielsen <chrispnielsen@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Biden's plans
The great majority of people who were tried and convicted in the Spanish Inquisition suffered civil penalties - not execution. Marvin with a comment like that? you have the unmitigated nerve to call Joe Biden dumb .....ROFLMAO?
On Thursday, January 21, 2021, 06:01:16 PM CST, mrvnchpmn <chapman@...> wrote:
The Spanish Inquisition was a non event if you actually look at the statistics - more people were burned at the stake in France than in Spain. The officer had his knee on the man's neck because that was what he was taught - you could easily recommend different training - but sometimes there is no alternative to doing what you are trained to do. Marvin About like there was no shooting during the Spanish Inquisition , just burning at the stake. The officer's knee was on the man's neck for what 8 minutes as I recall.?
On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 04:36:00 PM CST, mrvnchpmn <chapman@...> wrote:
Incidentally there was no shooting involved in the George Floyd case - it was an officer engaging in a control move taught at the academy. It would be a good idea to review the training - but also look at the autopsy - which showed Floyd with high levels of methamphatamine in his blood - otherwise known as he was high as a kite. Marvin I don't understand your perspective.? How can times be so good if Trump is the worst president in history? Up till 2020, the country was in excellent shape, despite the Democrats' incessant effort to unseat Trump since he started his term. Unemployment was at record lows, the stock market was at record highs, we were disengaging from wars, not entering them, and black employment was the highest in history and the black/white wage gap was at its lowest.? Trump dealt succesfully with North Korea, got us out of Syria, and increased sanctions on Russia and Iran.? He put other members of NATO on notice to pay their bills and got us out of counterproductive groups like WHO and the Paris Accords, renegiotiated the failed NAFTA agreement while dealing with China and its unfair trade policies. Coronavirus set the world back, and Trump's administration dealt with coronavirus by closing borders and commissioning vaccines in record time by cutting red tape.? Despite news reports to the contrary, the US is not the world's worst country, nor is it worse than the EU. ?(Most of Africa doesn't record deaths at all, China's rate of covid is suspiciously low, as are many other Asian countries that basically do nothing about it, so you can only compare the US with other western nations.) The George Floyd protests were caused by police shootings, which were the result of the militarization of the police force, which occurred under Obama's watch and since 9/11.? The protests also contributed significantly to the spread of covid, as the graphs clearly show. The Democrats scarcely campaigned; ?Biden suddenly emerged from the back of the pack late in the primaries, which was a backroom deal if there ever was one, and the party's strategy was to raise discontent of an already stricken nation by blaming everything on Trump. Most Democrats won't agree with the preceding, and some moderates buy into all that as well, but they should ask themselves when were times better? I wasn't around between the Civil War and the Great Depression, and WWII, or the Korean War but came of age with the Red Scare, when McCarthyism took hold, followed by the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin Wall, and everything else associated with the Cold War.? Then we had the Civil Righs unrest, political assassinations, during the War in Vietnam and all those protests, Watergate, the economic crisis of the Carter years when we saw everyone's wealth destroyed by the inflationary recession, and ?brief respite during the Reagan years, followed by the first invasion of Iraq, and the Cliinton years with all its scandals, the specter of AIDS, and the failure of NAFTA, and Chinese influence through campaign financing.? During those years, we also say American factories close and the middle class gutted as American companies moved production to China with impunity.? Under Clinton, the dotcom bubble built up unabated with day trading that ruined millions of retirement savings. The GW Bush administration was also an awful period in our history, starting with 9/11, the ill-conceived and hastily written Patriot Act that eroded civil rights, followed by the neverending war in Afghanistan and the occupation in Iraq.? Domestically, we had the housing bubble, which crashed at the end of Bush's second term, ruining the equity again of millions of Americans. Obama's years weren't exactly copacetic, either, as Obama dithered, keeping Afghanistan and Iraq festering and bleeding our economy dry while his anti-business executive orders quashed business expansion, making the slowest recovery in history.? During Obama's watch, the opoid crises festered, while the Affordable Care Act, which gave away medical care to millions of poor Americans, made medical care unaffordable for privately insured middle class Americans like small businesses, which were largely ignored during the Obama years, despite being the biggest drivers to our economy. So, aside from the Reagan years, which were meh, not great, what period would you choose to live in that was better than the first three years of the Trump administration?? I'll agree that Trump was probably the worst orator in all that time, and was, personally about the most abrasive and unlikable person to ascend to the presidency since Truman, but who cares when the economy is stable and everyone has a job and there aren't any wars? Ed On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, Christian Nielsen <chrispnielsen@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Biden's plans
jim twist
with a comment like that? you have the unmitigated nerve to call Joe Biden dumb .....ROFLMAO?
On Thursday, January 21, 2021, 06:01:16 PM CST, mrvnchpmn <chapman@...> wrote:
The Spanish Inquisition was a non event if you actually look at the statistics - more people were burned at the stake in France than in Spain. The officer had his knee on the man's neck because that was what he was taught - you could easily recommend different training - but sometimes there is no alternative to doing what you are trained to do. Marvin About like there was no shooting during the Spanish Inquisition , just burning at the stake. The officer's knee was on the man's neck for what 8 minutes as I recall.?
On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 04:36:00 PM CST, mrvnchpmn <chapman@...> wrote:
Incidentally there was no shooting involved in the George Floyd case - it was an officer engaging in a control move taught at the academy. It would be a good idea to review the training - but also look at the autopsy - which showed Floyd with high levels of methamphatamine in his blood - otherwise known as he was high as a kite. Marvin I don't understand your perspective.? How can times be so good if Trump is the worst president in history? Up till 2020, the country was in excellent shape, despite the Democrats' incessant effort to unseat Trump since he started his term. Unemployment was at record lows, the stock market was at record highs, we were disengaging from wars, not entering them, and black employment was the highest in history and the black/white wage gap was at its lowest.? Trump dealt succesfully with North Korea, got us out of Syria, and increased sanctions on Russia and Iran.? He put other members of NATO on notice to pay their bills and got us out of counterproductive groups like WHO and the Paris Accords, renegiotiated the failed NAFTA agreement while dealing with China and its unfair trade policies. Coronavirus set the world back, and Trump's administration dealt with coronavirus by closing borders and commissioning vaccines in record time by cutting red tape.? Despite news reports to the contrary, the US is not the world's worst country, nor is it worse than the EU. ?(Most of Africa doesn't record deaths at all, China's rate of covid is suspiciously low, as are many other Asian countries that basically do nothing about it, so you can only compare the US with other western nations.) The George Floyd protests were caused by police shootings, which were the result of the militarization of the police force, which occurred under Obama's watch and since 9/11.? The protests also contributed significantly to the spread of covid, as the graphs clearly show. The Democrats scarcely campaigned; ?Biden suddenly emerged from the back of the pack late in the primaries, which was a backroom deal if there ever was one, and the party's strategy was to raise discontent of an already stricken nation by blaming everything on Trump. Most Democrats won't agree with the preceding, and some moderates buy into all that as well, but they should ask themselves when were times better? I wasn't around between the Civil War and the Great Depression, and WWII, or the Korean War but came of age with the Red Scare, when McCarthyism took hold, followed by the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin Wall, and everything else associated with the Cold War.? Then we had the Civil Righs unrest, political assassinations, during the War in Vietnam and all those protests, Watergate, the economic crisis of the Carter years when we saw everyone's wealth destroyed by the inflationary recession, and ?brief respite during the Reagan years, followed by the first invasion of Iraq, and the Cliinton years with all its scandals, the specter of AIDS, and the failure of NAFTA, and Chinese influence through campaign financing.? During those years, we also say American factories close and the middle class gutted as American companies moved production to China with impunity.? Under Clinton, the dotcom bubble built up unabated with day trading that ruined millions of retirement savings. The GW Bush administration was also an awful period in our history, starting with 9/11, the ill-conceived and hastily written Patriot Act that eroded civil rights, followed by the neverending war in Afghanistan and the occupation in Iraq.? Domestically, we had the housing bubble, which crashed at the end of Bush's second term, ruining the equity again of millions of Americans. Obama's years weren't exactly copacetic, either, as Obama dithered, keeping Afghanistan and Iraq festering and bleeding our economy dry while his anti-business executive orders quashed business expansion, making the slowest recovery in history.? During Obama's watch, the opoid crises festered, while the Affordable Care Act, which gave away medical care to millions of poor Americans, made medical care unaffordable for privately insured middle class Americans like small businesses, which were largely ignored during the Obama years, despite being the biggest drivers to our economy. So, aside from the Reagan years, which were meh, not great, what period would you choose to live in that was better than the first three years of the Trump administration?? I'll agree that Trump was probably the worst orator in all that time, and was, personally about the most abrasive and unlikable person to ascend to the presidency since Truman, but who cares when the economy is stable and everyone has a job and there aren't any wars? Ed On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, Christian Nielsen <chrispnielsen@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Biden's plans
The Spanish Inquisition was a non event if you actually look at the statistics - more people were burned at the stake in France than in Spain. The officer had his knee on the man's neck because that was what he was taught - you could easily recommend different training - but sometimes there is no alternative to doing what you are trained to do. Marvin About like there was no shooting during the Spanish Inquisition , just burning at the stake. The officer's knee was on the man's neck for what 8 minutes as I recall.?
On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 04:36:00 PM CST, mrvnchpmn <chapman@...> wrote:
Incidentally there was no shooting involved in the George Floyd case - it was an officer engaging in a control move taught at the academy. It would be a good idea to review the training - but also look at the autopsy - which showed Floyd with high levels of methamphatamine in his blood - otherwise known as he was high as a kite. Marvin I don't understand your perspective.? How can times be so good if Trump is the worst president in history? Up till 2020, the country was in excellent shape, despite the Democrats' incessant effort to unseat Trump since he started his term. Unemployment was at record lows, the stock market was at record highs, we were disengaging from wars, not entering them, and black employment was the highest in history and the black/white wage gap was at its lowest.? Trump dealt succesfully with North Korea, got us out of Syria, and increased sanctions on Russia and Iran.? He put other members of NATO on notice to pay their bills and got us out of counterproductive groups like WHO and the Paris Accords, renegiotiated the failed NAFTA agreement while dealing with China and its unfair trade policies. Coronavirus set the world back, and Trump's administration dealt with coronavirus by closing borders and commissioning vaccines in record time by cutting red tape.? Despite news reports to the contrary, the US is not the world's worst country, nor is it worse than the EU. ?(Most of Africa doesn't record deaths at all, China's rate of covid is suspiciously low, as are many other Asian countries that basically do nothing about it, so you can only compare the US with other western nations.) The George Floyd protests were caused by police shootings, which were the result of the militarization of the police force, which occurred under Obama's watch and since 9/11.? The protests also contributed significantly to the spread of covid, as the graphs clearly show. The Democrats scarcely campaigned; ?Biden suddenly emerged from the back of the pack late in the primaries, which was a backroom deal if there ever was one, and the party's strategy was to raise discontent of an already stricken nation by blaming everything on Trump. Most Democrats won't agree with the preceding, and some moderates buy into all that as well, but they should ask themselves when were times better? I wasn't around between the Civil War and the Great Depression, and WWII, or the Korean War but came of age with the Red Scare, when McCarthyism took hold, followed by the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin Wall, and everything else associated with the Cold War.? Then we had the Civil Righs unrest, political assassinations, during the War in Vietnam and all those protests, Watergate, the economic crisis of the Carter years when we saw everyone's wealth destroyed by the inflationary recession, and ?brief respite during the Reagan years, followed by the first invasion of Iraq, and the Cliinton years with all its scandals, the specter of AIDS, and the failure of NAFTA, and Chinese influence through campaign financing.? During those years, we also say American factories close and the middle class gutted as American companies moved production to China with impunity.? Under Clinton, the dotcom bubble built up unabated with day trading that ruined millions of retirement savings. The GW Bush administration was also an awful period in our history, starting with 9/11, the ill-conceived and hastily written Patriot Act that eroded civil rights, followed by the neverending war in Afghanistan and the occupation in Iraq.? Domestically, we had the housing bubble, which crashed at the end of Bush's second term, ruining the equity again of millions of Americans. Obama's years weren't exactly copacetic, either, as Obama dithered, keeping Afghanistan and Iraq festering and bleeding our economy dry while his anti-business executive orders quashed business expansion, making the slowest recovery in history.? During Obama's watch, the opoid crises festered, while the Affordable Care Act, which gave away medical care to millions of poor Americans, made medical care unaffordable for privately insured middle class Americans like small businesses, which were largely ignored during the Obama years, despite being the biggest drivers to our economy. So, aside from the Reagan years, which were meh, not great, what period would you choose to live in that was better than the first three years of the Trump administration?? I'll agree that Trump was probably the worst orator in all that time, and was, personally about the most abrasive and unlikable person to ascend to the presidency since Truman, but who cares when the economy is stable and everyone has a job and there aren't any wars? Ed On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, Christian Nielsen <chrispnielsen@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: political analysis - why Trump lost
A bit winded way to say the DemoRATS?? cheated.
On Thursday, January 21, 2021, 2:54:34 AM EST, David Smith <david.smith.mpowered@...> wrote:
Why Trump Lost ... but almost won by Jan 20, 2021 In the wake of the presidential election half of our divided nation asked, incredulously: how did Donald Trump lose? Equally incredulously, the other half asked: how could he have almost won? Joe Biden¡¯s victory will not change the Democratic and Republican parties¡¯ basic dilemmas. For Democrats, the ¡°fundamental transformation¡± of America promised by Barack Obama is still far from electorally secure. For their part, Republicans haven¡¯t found a way to appeal to a majority of voters¡ªeven had Trump won the Electoral College, no fraud claims could have erased Biden¡¯s 7 million national-vote lead. Why Trump Lost Granted, the election polls¡¯ repeated underestimating of the Trump vote suggests the possibility of ¡°shy Trump voters.¡± It¡¯s also possible (though not certain) that job approval polls similarly underestimated Trump¡¯s support throughout his presidency. But it is important not to exaggerate the significance of this effect. Real Clear Politics election polling averaged a Biden lead of 7.2% on Election Day. The end result was a national Biden lead of 4.5%. If one incorporates a similar effect to Trump¡¯s approval ratings from the beginning of his presidency through election day he would still be the most consistently unpopular president since polling began. Most presidents have experienced lows; many have been in the low 40s a year before being re-elected. No one has spent their entire presidency there.Trump¡¯s defeat should not have surprised anyone. It is a truism of presidential elections that, when an incumbent runs for re-election, the election is largely a referendum on the incumbent. This incumbent was the most consistently unpopular president since polling began. According to presidential job approval surveys, fewer than 40% of Americans approved of Trump¡¯s performance for most of his first year in office, and fewer than 45% for most of the remainder of his presidency. The Real Clear Politics approval average showed him reaching a high of 47% after rallying the country to confront COVID-19 in late March 2020, before falling again. His approval ratings were ¡°underwater¡±¡ªthe number approving outnumbered by the number disapproving¡ªfrom January 27, 2017 for the remainder of his presidency. The remarkable stability of Trump¡¯s (low) approval ratings was matched by a remarkable stability in Biden¡¯s lead over Trump since mid-2019 when pollsters began regularly asking questions about head-to-head matchups. Biden led by about five percentage points for over a year until building an even larger lead in early October. Some of that lead at the end of the race was clearly dubious, and may have been before. But, again, probably not enough to erase it. Then there were the circumstances in the country, which resembled other times incumbents were defeated. Historically, it is difficult to beat an elected incumbent¡ªit usually requires a conflation of difficulties that produce not just hardship but a sense of national unravelling. The last losing incumbent was George H.W. Bush, who in 1992 faced a recession, the Rodney King riots, and a mostly positive¡ªbut fatal to Bush¡ªsense that the world had changed in ways that required adjustment. Before Bush the last losing incumbent was Jimmy Carter, who in 1980 faced recession, inflation, high interest rates, riots in Miami, oil shortages, and simultaneous foreign crises, including the humiliating hostage crisis in Iran. Before Carter there was Herbert Hoover, who had to contend with the Great Depression, increasingly severe social unravelling, and the disorder surrounding the Bonus Army. (Gerald Ford, who came between Hoover and Carter, was not a comparable case, having not been elected to the presidency initially, but he also faced his share of outsized difficulties, most notably the backlash to Watergate.) Trump faced COVID, a deadly crisis of international scope that almost no democracy handled well, a depression-like economic plunge associated with the virus and the draconian lockdowns, and the most widespread and destructive civil disorder since the 1960s. Near election day, the percentage of Americans who said the country was on the wrong track outnumbered those who thought it was on the right track by 61% to 32%. That actually represented a modest recovery since August 3, when the margin was 71% to 23%. Except for a moment in March (and perhaps late August) Trump was never able to turn the crises to his advantage. Instead, his reality-TV persona and endless Twitter bombardment proved unequal to the tasks at hand¡ªto calm the nation, embrace the presidential role of head of state, administer the executive branch competently, and make a careful, reasoned argument in his defense. In the end, too many Americans simply stopped listening. Many had stopped listening before 2020 began. Part of the referendum on Trump didn¡¯t have to do with partisan issues or the state of the country, but with his conduct as president. Though his most fervent supporters tended to dismiss the importance of his comportment, it is undeniable that voters had some vague ¡°presidential¡± standard which Trump too often failed to meet. CNN exit polls showed he narrowly won among the three fourths of voters who said issues were most important; Biden held a 2-1 margin among the quarter of voters who said the candidates¡¯ personal qualities were most important. Fifty-four percent thought Biden had the temperament to be president; only 44% said Trump did. The president¡¯s boorish behavior in the first debate did not help¡ªit was followed immediately by a doubling of Biden¡¯s lead in public election polls (though it is hard to untangle the effects of the debate from news of the president¡¯s contraction of COVID days later). Trump¡¯s defenders argue that Biden¡¯s support owed no small amount to the bias of an overwhelming majority of the national news media, which consistently painted the president in the worst light and his challenger in the best light. They have a point. Since at least 2004, when CBS News tried to peddle an obvious forgery as part of its war on George W. Bush, we have seen a kind of return of the partisan press of the 1800s. In the 1800s, however, there were Democratic and Republican newspapers in every large town and city. Today finds almost all major newspapers, all major networks but one, and all social media empires serving as Democratic Party adjuncts. The result, starting with two and a half years of Russia collusion coverage for which no one has yet apologized, was the most unbalanced coverage of a president in modern times. Coverage did not improve during the campaign. Coronavirus stories focused on the alleged failings of Trump and Republican governors while letting Democrat Andrew Cuomo, for example, off the hook, despite New York¡¯s suffering a death rate more than twice Florida¡¯s. The Atlantic claimed Trump insulted dead American servicemen, though the story was unsourced and the claim disputed by people who were there (some of whom¡ªlike John Bolton¡ªhad fallen out with Trump and had no reason to defend him). Bob Woodward revealed Trump had kept worrisome assessments of COVID from Americans early on to avoid panicking them. The New York Times published a piece on Trump¡¯s taxes based on information that could only have been provided illegally. Worse was what ·É²¹²õ²Ô¡¯³Ù covered. The story of Hunter Biden¡¯s laptop, which would undoubtedly have dominated the news for weeks had the laptop been Donald Trump, Jr.¡¯s, was aggressively spiked by social media and most of the rest of the national media complex. A post-election Media Research Center survey showed that, in crucial states, nearly half of Biden voters had never heard about Hunter¡¯s laptop. Around 5% of his voters said they would have switched their votes had they known. The president¡¯s momentous diplomatic victories in the Middle East? The big comeback in GDP in the third quarter? Kamala Harris¡¯s Senate voting record, putting her to the left of Bernie Sanders? All sent down the memory hole after at most perfunctory acknowledgment. One is tempted to say that either we will start having a two-party press or we will stop having a two-party country. But it is too easy to blame the media. Trump did, after all, give them plenty of material to work with. What fit of arrogance persuaded him to give unfettered access to Bob Woodward? Besides, a large part of the public had already given up on the prospect of evenhanded coverage from the national media¡ªand adjusted their thoughts accordingly. And when Trump had the opportunity to connect with Americans unfiltered by the media¡ªtweets, debates¡ªhe often looked no better than when the media controlled the narrative. What about the impact of mail-in voting? Leaving aside the potential for fraud, there were two unquestionable effects. The first was to boost voter turnout, probably disproportionately on the Democratic side¡ªboth because Democrats were, on average, more afraid of in-person voting this year and because Democrats rely more heavily on a support base (starting with young voters) that is more likely to vote if one puts a ballot directly in their hands. The second effect was more random and may have either reinforced or undercut the pro-Democratic effect. When all is said and done, a non-trivial number of ballots will have gone missing, either on their way to or from voters. How those random misfires affected vote totals may be unwound someday with considerable difficulty; it is unknown today. Coronavirus may thus be said to have hurt Trump in three ways: by darkening the national mood, by throwing the nation into a recession, and by expanding a voting system that (probably) advantaged Democrats. But, remember, the voting system had the effect of confirming what the job approval data and head-to-head polls had been saying all along. In the end, Trump lost the crucial suburban and Independent vote, after narrowly winning both in 2016. Indeed, with a few exceptions, his vote deteriorated across the board, in nearly every group¡ªmen and women, Catholics and evangelicals, rural as well as suburban, college-educated and those without degrees, even military veterans, where his advantage fell from 26 percentage points in 2016 to 10 in 2020. Given the realities under which the election was taking place, any incumbent would have faced an uphill climb. Of eight notable election models fashioned by political scientists and historians, most based on the ¡°fundamentals¡± of the election, six predicted a Biden win. Why Trump Almost Won While half the country wonders what went wrong in Trump¡¯s defeat, the other half wonders what went wrong in Biden¡¯s victory¡ªwhy ·É²¹²õ²Ô¡¯³Ù it a blowout? Why did they go to bed fearing they had lost, then sweat for days waiting to find out if Biden¡¯s small, early-morning margins in key states would hold up? First, the steep economic decline related to COVID was sandwiched between a strong Trump economy beforehand and a sharp recovery after midyear. Economic performance was Trump¡¯s best area in polls throughout his presidency, and remained so in the fall. A month before election day, Gallup released a survey indicating that 56% of Americans judged themselves better off than they had been four years before. American elections are always about more than economics, but this data point alone should have forced pollsters and pundits to re-examine their confident predictions of a Biden blowout. The economy was important but in conflicting ways for different people¡ªand sometimes for the same people. Gallup collected additional survey information that telegraphed to careful observers that no blowout was to be expected. In June, Democrats held a 33 to 26% lead over Republicans in self-reported party affiliation; by October, Republicans had drawn even, 31% to 31%. Counting ¡°leaners,¡± Democrats led by a 50% to 39% margin in June¡ªan advantage whittled down to 49% to 45% by October. The narrowing of the partisan gap since summer was undoubtedly the result of the Democratic Party¡¯s increasing radicalism, manifested most clearly in their embrace of Black Lives Matter¡ªdespite its Marxist roots and connection to riots around the country¡ªand their refusal to acknowledge even the existence of Antifa during the latter¡¯s nightly assaults on a federal courthouse in Portland. BLM and Antifa were openly revolutionary. One BLM leader in New York promised that if the group¡¯s demands were not met, ¡°[W]e will burn down this system¡. And I could be speaking figuratively. I could be speaking literally.¡± Another in Chicago defended rampant looting as a form of reparations. With virtually no criticism by any prominent Democrat, rioters tore down or defaced statues of, among others, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, a Wisconsin abolitionist who died in battle at Gettysburg, and the 54th Massachusetts regiment¡ªthe first unit of black troops in the Union Army. Add to this picture calls by prominent Democrats to ¡°defund the police,¡± end fossil fuels, pack the Supreme Court, enact large tax increases, and reform health care in a way that might ultimately destroy private insurance, and the implicit subtext of the Democratic campaign was operating at cross-purposes with Biden¡¯s explicit attempt to deliver a Warren Harding-esque ¡°return to normalcy.¡± Normalcy, the Green New Deal, riots, CHAZ¡ªone of these things is not like the others. Just as Trump gave Democrats plenty of ammunition to run a campaign against his character and temperament, Democrats gave Trump abundant material to turn his re-election into an existential fight for America. It didn¡¯t prove enough to overcome the referendum dynamic and win, but it was enough to narrow the gap. And it was enough to give Republicans a chance to turn the tide in the congressional elections, where they held Senate losses well below expectations¡ªat least until they blew the Georgia runoffs two months later with a strong assist from Trump himself¡ªand actually gained seats in the House, putting them within striking distance of a majority in 2022. There are at least three interesting positive observations one can make about Trump¡¯s vote. The first, frequently heard post-election, is that his smaller share of the white vote compared to 2016¡ªpredominantly among college-educated suburbanites¡ªwas partially offset by a larger share of the non-white vote. Trump gained four percentage points among blacks (to 12%), four among Latinos (to 32%), and seven among Asians (to 34%). Republicans might learn that they can hold to a firm anti-wokeness line and still increase support among non-whites by aggressively campaigning for their votes. The most woke people in America, after all, are affluent whites¡ªnot blacks, Latinos, or Asians. The other two observations have been largely lost in post-election commentary. One is that, according to exit polls, Trump won among voters who decided in October whom to support. Hunter Biden broke through to some voters despite the best efforts of the national media and Twitter¡¯s Jack Dorsey. So too did Biden¡¯s admission in the second debate that he intended to end fossil fuels in America. The third positive observation is that Trump broke even among those who had voted before. Biden¡¯s entire popular vote margin was accounted for by first-time voters. Both observations repeated results from 2016. Trump won October despite the late-breaking Access Hollywood tape; he also lost first-time voters but broke even among all others. With all the focus of political scientists on the race¡¯s fundamentals, it is easy to forget that campaigns and candidates can matter, at least at the margins. President Trump was an exceptionally polarizing figure who mobilized a record number of voters both for and against. Biden won by playing it safe, remaining in his basement for extended periods and frequently declaring an early ¡°lid¡± on his campaigning. Biden¡¯s strategy seemed to have been inspired by Napoleon, who was reported to have remarked that one should never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself. It is also altogether possible that Biden was not capable of greater exertion. But whether due to Napoleonic brilliance or physical and mental exhaustion, Biden¡¯s passivity gave Trump the opportunity to make the election close by mobilizing his enthusiastic supporters. In 1948, ¡°President¡± Tom Dewey found out the hard way that Americans like a scrappy candidate and are reluctant to vote for those who take victory for granted. Biden nearly learned the same lesson. Trump was a live candidate, running a real campaign. Biden was a cardboard cutout who ventured forth so intermittently that it was not an unreasonable question at several junctures whether he was still alive. When he did appear, he steadfastly refused to say anything (except by accident) that would clarify the deliberately muddy picture his campaign had created. Would he condemn violence by BLM and Antifa? I condemn violence. Those white supremacists are nasty. Would he pack the Supreme Court? You¡¯ll find out after the election. In any case, voters don¡¯t deserve to know. It is hardly surprising that a certain subset of voters rebelled, choosing the lively candidate with views that were easy to parse. Not least, Trump nearly came away with a win because of the ongoing advantages reaped by the Republicans from the more efficient distribution of their support within the Electoral College system. Unlike Hillary Clinton in 2016, Joe Biden did not owe his entire popular vote lead and then some to California. Nevertheless, three fourths of his 7 million vote national lead came from the Golden State. Democrats¡¯ refusal to move to the center in either their issue positions or their vice-presidential choice meant that states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada would be hotly contested. Democrats gambled that Biden could rebuild the old ¡°Blue Wall¡± by simply reaping the benefits of Trump¡¯s weaknesses, and it worked. But only barely. Most of the crucial states that flipped were states Trump had won by the skin of his teeth four years before. In 2020 Biden won them the same way. The Issue of Fraud? Of course, no discussion of 2020 would be complete without an assessment of the allegations of massive fraud made¡ªincreasingly intemperately¡ªby the president from the early hours of November 4 on. Two things should be stipulated. One is that fraud does occur in the United States; happy assurances to the contrary are factually wrong, starting with a congressional election in North Carolina as recently as 2018 that was vacated and re-run due to widespread fraud. The other is that Democrats demonstrated over the last four years a willingness to bypass any and all ethical constraints to take down President Trump. Having said that, one has to make distinctions between the varying types of irregularities alleged. The Trump camp, for example, alleged that in many key states there were a large number of votes cast by, or under, the names of ineligible voters. Except for one legal case that is still ongoing in Georgia at this writing, such claims did not hold up in court. Evidence was often shaky, and judges naturally shied away from the draconian remedy of overturning a certified election. In other cases, Trump made the argument that procedures adopted in some states and metropolitan areas established the conditions for fraud, but that is not the same as proving fraud occurred. The most dramatic claim was that industrial-scale fraud took place across multiple states, implicating both local election officials and the Dominion voting system. Indeed, since he needed to flip at least three states, such an expansive claim was necessary to keep Trump¡¯s hopes alive. His supporters brought forth a variety of circumstantial arguments for the claim, but no indisputable hard evidence. Much of the circumstantial evidence was unpersuasive, based on Trump¡¯s wins in the bellwether states of Ohio and Florida (bellwethers are, after all, bellwethers just until they aren¡¯t) or on Joe Biden¡¯s lack of congressional coattails (in 1988, 1992, 2000, and 2016, presidential winners also lost House seats) or on statistical rules that were of limited relevance to elections (Benford¡¯s Law). Some demanded more consideration, including claims that certain spikes in vote reporting contained unreasonably large Biden majorities, but even then it ·É²¹²õ²Ô¡¯³Ù clear that the analysts knew what they were doing, and their numbers were often disputed by other analysts. The Trump legal team itself frequently backtracked on its claims and retracted allegations after making them. On the other hand, a different form of circumstantial evidence strongly pointed toward a lack of widespread fraud. One would expect that if Joe Biden benefited from large-scale fraud, his reported vote percentages would be significantly higher than his showing in exit polls in the same state. However, Biden¡¯s exit poll percentages in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were almost identical to his reported vote count. And, while there has been considerable speculation about Dominion on both sides of the aisle over the years, the one actual case in which votes seemed to be switched¡ªAntrim County, Michigan¡ªdid not prove what Trump¡¯s supporters contended. In fact, an error in vote reporting¡ªnot vote counting¡ªwas caught and quickly corrected, and a hand audit of all Antrim County ballots verified the result in December. A hand recount of ballots in Georgia also confirmed the original result there. In fact, the Trump campaign¡¯s strongest argument had nothing to do with fraud but with the way numerous key states dramatically (and arguably unconstitutionally) altered their voting rules and procedures without consent of the legislature. (The Pennsylvania legislature also adopted an important change that seemed to violate its state constitution.) But these were legal battles that should have been fought months or years before election day. That the president and his team did not, by and large, fight them does not then constitute theft. What Does It All Mean? Political institutions are also closely divided. The presidency and Senate have reverted to Democrats, who also hold the House. But both Biden¡¯s margin in the states that gave him the Electoral College and the division of parties in both houses of Congress are so close that no one can take anything for granted. In a 50-50 Senate, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski are destined to become the Senate¡¯s most pivotal members. State governments remain predominantly in Republican hands, and the federal courts are (for the time being) infused with conservatives. There is no consensus in the country, and our institutions reflect this. Although progressives made gains in 2020, they fell well short of what they had hoped, and Democrats could easily lose control of both House and Senate in 2022. For their part, though they need to assure ballot security, Republicans face risks from a continued focus on fraud, including further alienating suburban voters and accidentally triggering electoral reforms that lead in the direction of a federalization of elections. The historical significance of the election will be unclear for years. It has exposed challenges for both parties, including divisions within them. The battle between establishment Democrats and progressives is just beginning. The struggle between traditional Republicans and Trumpists, largely submerged for most of Trump¡¯s presidency, has been revived by post-election voter fraud disputes and by the Capitol riot of January 6. In certain respects we now have four parties, not two. Things are likely to remain that way for some time. Trump, being Trump, will want to remain in the game. He spoke for many Americans who felt betrayed and left behind, and he showed grassroots Republicans the fighting spirit they craved. His administration also accomplished a number of things that conservatives found praiseworthy, from constitutionalist judicial appointments to regulatory reform to a strong (though sometimes belated) stand against identity politics to formation of the anti-Iranian coalition in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Trump failed to make himself acceptable to a majority, or even a plurality, of Americans. The cold fact remains that he was outpolled by 3 million votes by the most disliked Democratic nominee since polling began (Mrs. Clinton) and by 7 million votes by a mediocre career politician who barely campaigned and who will enter office older than Ronald Reagan was when he left. Even before he gave vent to his most narcissistic and demagogic impulses after November 3, there was simply no reason to believe Trump had the potential to expand his appeal enough to produce a different result. Now, his post-election meltdown threatens to become the dominant memory of his presidency, a descent that outweighs all else. The foremost question for Republicans is whether they will be able to walk an electoral tightrope: apply what worked for Trump and keep his core constituency, while learning how to appeal to a broader electorate and avoiding the taint of January 6. The congressional elections of 2020 might be evidence that they have already started to construct such a political amalgam, and that voters are receptive to it. The next question is whether Donald Trump will let them. ? https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/why-trump-lost/ ¡ª |
|
political analysis - why Trump lost
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýWhy Trump Lost ... but almost won by Jan 20, 2021 In the wake of the presidential election half of our divided nation asked, incredulously: how did Donald Trump lose? Equally incredulously, the other half asked: how could he have almost won? Joe Biden¡¯s victory will not change the Democratic and Republican parties¡¯ basic dilemmas. For Democrats, the ¡°fundamental transformation¡± of America promised by Barack Obama is still far from electorally secure. For their part, Republicans haven¡¯t found a way to appeal to a majority of voters¡ªeven had Trump won the Electoral College, no fraud claims could have erased Biden¡¯s 7 million national-vote lead. Why Trump Lost Granted, the election polls¡¯ repeated underestimating of the Trump vote suggests the possibility of ¡°shy Trump voters.¡± It¡¯s also possible (though not certain) that job approval polls similarly underestimated Trump¡¯s support throughout his presidency. But it is important not to exaggerate the significance of this effect. Real Clear Politics election polling averaged a Biden lead of 7.2% on Election Day. The end result was a national Biden lead of 4.5%. If one incorporates a similar effect to Trump¡¯s approval ratings from the beginning of his presidency through election day he would still be the most consistently unpopular president since polling began. Most presidents have experienced lows; many have been in the low 40s a year before being re-elected. No one has spent their entire presidency there.Trump¡¯s defeat should not have surprised anyone. It is a truism of presidential elections that, when an incumbent runs for re-election, the election is largely a referendum on the incumbent. This incumbent was the most consistently unpopular president since polling began. According to presidential job approval surveys, fewer than 40% of Americans approved of Trump¡¯s performance for most of his first year in office, and fewer than 45% for most of the remainder of his presidency. The Real Clear Politics approval average showed him reaching a high of 47% after rallying the country to confront COVID-19 in late March 2020, before falling again. His approval ratings were ¡°underwater¡±¡ªthe number approving outnumbered by the number disapproving¡ªfrom January 27, 2017 for the remainder of his presidency. The remarkable stability of Trump¡¯s (low) approval ratings was matched by a remarkable stability in Biden¡¯s lead over Trump since mid-2019 when pollsters began regularly asking questions about head-to-head matchups. Biden led by about five percentage points for over a year until building an even larger lead in early October. Some of that lead at the end of the race was clearly dubious, and may have been before. But, again, probably not enough to erase it. Then there were the circumstances in the country, which resembled other times incumbents were defeated. Historically, it is difficult to beat an elected incumbent¡ªit usually requires a conflation of difficulties that produce not just hardship but a sense of national unravelling. The last losing incumbent was George H.W. Bush, who in 1992 faced a recession, the Rodney King riots, and a mostly positive¡ªbut fatal to Bush¡ªsense that the world had changed in ways that required adjustment. Before Bush the last losing incumbent was Jimmy Carter, who in 1980 faced recession, inflation, high interest rates, riots in Miami, oil shortages, and simultaneous foreign crises, including the humiliating hostage crisis in Iran. Before Carter there was Herbert Hoover, who had to contend with the Great Depression, increasingly severe social unravelling, and the disorder surrounding the Bonus Army. (Gerald Ford, who came between Hoover and Carter, was not a comparable case, having not been elected to the presidency initially, but he also faced his share of outsized difficulties, most notably the backlash to Watergate.) Trump faced COVID, a deadly crisis of international scope that almost no democracy handled well, a depression-like economic plunge associated with the virus and the draconian lockdowns, and the most widespread and destructive civil disorder since the 1960s. Near election day, the percentage of Americans who said the country was on the wrong track outnumbered those who thought it was on the right track by 61% to 32%. That actually represented a modest recovery since August 3, when the margin was 71% to 23%. Except for a moment in March (and perhaps late August) Trump was never able to turn the crises to his advantage. Instead, his reality-TV persona and endless Twitter bombardment proved unequal to the tasks at hand¡ªto calm the nation, embrace the presidential role of head of state, administer the executive branch competently, and make a careful, reasoned argument in his defense. In the end, too many Americans simply stopped listening. Many had stopped listening before 2020 began. Part of the referendum on Trump didn¡¯t have to do with partisan issues or the state of the country, but with his conduct as president. Though his most fervent supporters tended to dismiss the importance of his comportment, it is undeniable that voters had some vague ¡°presidential¡± standard which Trump too often failed to meet. CNN exit polls showed he narrowly won among the three fourths of voters who said issues were most important; Biden held a 2-1 margin among the quarter of voters who said the candidates¡¯ personal qualities were most important. Fifty-four percent thought Biden had the temperament to be president; only 44% said Trump did. The president¡¯s boorish behavior in the first debate did not help¡ªit was followed immediately by a doubling of Biden¡¯s lead in public election polls (though it is hard to untangle the effects of the debate from news of the president¡¯s contraction of COVID days later). Trump¡¯s defenders argue that Biden¡¯s support owed no small amount to the bias of an overwhelming majority of the national news media, which consistently painted the president in the worst light and his challenger in the best light. They have a point. Since at least 2004, when CBS News tried to peddle an obvious forgery as part of its war on George W. Bush, we have seen a kind of return of the partisan press of the 1800s. In the 1800s, however, there were Democratic and Republican newspapers in every large town and city. Today finds almost all major newspapers, all major networks but one, and all social media empires serving as Democratic Party adjuncts. The result, starting with two and a half years of Russia collusion coverage for which no one has yet apologized, was the most unbalanced coverage of a president in modern times. Coverage did not improve during the campaign. Coronavirus stories focused on the alleged failings of Trump and Republican governors while letting Democrat Andrew Cuomo, for example, off the hook, despite New York¡¯s suffering a death rate more than twice Florida¡¯s. The Atlantic claimed Trump insulted dead American servicemen, though the story was unsourced and the claim disputed by people who were there (some of whom¡ªlike John Bolton¡ªhad fallen out with Trump and had no reason to defend him). Bob Woodward revealed Trump had kept worrisome assessments of COVID from Americans early on to avoid panicking them. The New York Times published a piece on Trump¡¯s taxes based on information that could only have been provided illegally. Worse was what ·É²¹²õ²Ô¡¯³Ù covered. The story of Hunter Biden¡¯s laptop, which would undoubtedly have dominated the news for weeks had the laptop been Donald Trump, Jr.¡¯s, was aggressively spiked by social media and most of the rest of the national media complex. A post-election Media Research Center survey showed that, in crucial states, nearly half of Biden voters had never heard about Hunter¡¯s laptop. Around 5% of his voters said they would have switched their votes had they known. The president¡¯s momentous diplomatic victories in the Middle East? The big comeback in GDP in the third quarter? Kamala Harris¡¯s Senate voting record, putting her to the left of Bernie Sanders? All sent down the memory hole after at most perfunctory acknowledgment. One is tempted to say that either we will start having a two-party press or we will stop having a two-party country. But it is too easy to blame the media. Trump did, after all, give them plenty of material to work with. What fit of arrogance persuaded him to give unfettered access to Bob Woodward? Besides, a large part of the public had already given up on the prospect of evenhanded coverage from the national media¡ªand adjusted their thoughts accordingly. And when Trump had the opportunity to connect with Americans unfiltered by the media¡ªtweets, debates¡ªhe often looked no better than when the media controlled the narrative. What about the impact of mail-in voting? Leaving aside the potential for fraud, there were two unquestionable effects. The first was to boost voter turnout, probably disproportionately on the Democratic side¡ªboth because Democrats were, on average, more afraid of in-person voting this year and because Democrats rely more heavily on a support base (starting with young voters) that is more likely to vote if one puts a ballot directly in their hands. The second effect was more random and may have either reinforced or undercut the pro-Democratic effect. When all is said and done, a non-trivial number of ballots will have gone missing, either on their way to or from voters. How those random misfires affected vote totals may be unwound someday with considerable difficulty; it is unknown today. Coronavirus may thus be said to have hurt Trump in three ways: by darkening the national mood, by throwing the nation into a recession, and by expanding a voting system that (probably) advantaged Democrats. But, remember, the voting system had the effect of confirming what the job approval data and head-to-head polls had been saying all along. In the end, Trump lost the crucial suburban and Independent vote, after narrowly winning both in 2016. Indeed, with a few exceptions, his vote deteriorated across the board, in nearly every group¡ªmen and women, Catholics and evangelicals, rural as well as suburban, college-educated and those without degrees, even military veterans, where his advantage fell from 26 percentage points in 2016 to 10 in 2020. Given the realities under which the election was taking place, any incumbent would have faced an uphill climb. Of eight notable election models fashioned by political scientists and historians, most based on the ¡°fundamentals¡± of the election, six predicted a Biden win. Why Trump Almost Won While half the country wonders what went wrong in Trump¡¯s defeat, the other half wonders what went wrong in Biden¡¯s victory¡ªwhy ·É²¹²õ²Ô¡¯³Ù it a blowout? Why did they go to bed fearing they had lost, then sweat for days waiting to find out if Biden¡¯s small, early-morning margins in key states would hold up? First, the steep economic decline related to COVID was sandwiched between a strong Trump economy beforehand and a sharp recovery after midyear. Economic performance was Trump¡¯s best area in polls throughout his presidency, and remained so in the fall. A month before election day, Gallup released a survey indicating that 56% of Americans judged themselves better off than they had been four years before. American elections are always about more than economics, but this data point alone should have forced pollsters and pundits to re-examine their confident predictions of a Biden blowout. The economy was important but in conflicting ways for different people¡ªand sometimes for the same people. Gallup collected additional survey information that telegraphed to careful observers that no blowout was to be expected. In June, Democrats held a 33 to 26% lead over Republicans in self-reported party affiliation; by October, Republicans had drawn even, 31% to 31%. Counting ¡°leaners,¡± Democrats led by a 50% to 39% margin in June¡ªan advantage whittled down to 49% to 45% by October. The narrowing of the partisan gap since summer was undoubtedly the result of the Democratic Party¡¯s increasing radicalism, manifested most clearly in their embrace of Black Lives Matter¡ªdespite its Marxist roots and connection to riots around the country¡ªand their refusal to acknowledge even the existence of Antifa during the latter¡¯s nightly assaults on a federal courthouse in Portland. BLM and Antifa were openly revolutionary. One BLM leader in New York promised that if the group¡¯s demands were not met, ¡°[W]e will burn down this system¡. And I could be speaking figuratively. I could be speaking literally.¡± Another in Chicago defended rampant looting as a form of reparations. With virtually no criticism by any prominent Democrat, rioters tore down or defaced statues of, among others, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, a Wisconsin abolitionist who died in battle at Gettysburg, and the 54th Massachusetts regiment¡ªthe first unit of black troops in the Union Army. Add to this picture calls by prominent Democrats to ¡°defund the police,¡± end fossil fuels, pack the Supreme Court, enact large tax increases, and reform health care in a way that might ultimately destroy private insurance, and the implicit subtext of the Democratic campaign was operating at cross-purposes with Biden¡¯s explicit attempt to deliver a Warren Harding-esque ¡°return to normalcy.¡± Normalcy, the Green New Deal, riots, CHAZ¡ªone of these things is not like the others. Just as Trump gave Democrats plenty of ammunition to run a campaign against his character and temperament, Democrats gave Trump abundant material to turn his re-election into an existential fight for America. It didn¡¯t prove enough to overcome the referendum dynamic and win, but it was enough to narrow the gap. And it was enough to give Republicans a chance to turn the tide in the congressional elections, where they held Senate losses well below expectations¡ªat least until they blew the Georgia runoffs two months later with a strong assist from Trump himself¡ªand actually gained seats in the House, putting them within striking distance of a majority in 2022. There are at least three interesting positive observations one can make about Trump¡¯s vote. The first, frequently heard post-election, is that his smaller share of the white vote compared to 2016¡ªpredominantly among college-educated suburbanites¡ªwas partially offset by a larger share of the non-white vote. Trump gained four percentage points among blacks (to 12%), four among Latinos (to 32%), and seven among Asians (to 34%). Republicans might learn that they can hold to a firm anti-wokeness line and still increase support among non-whites by aggressively campaigning for their votes. The most woke people in America, after all, are affluent whites¡ªnot blacks, Latinos, or Asians. The other two observations have been largely lost in post-election commentary. One is that, according to exit polls, Trump won among voters who decided in October whom to support. Hunter Biden broke through to some voters despite the best efforts of the national media and Twitter¡¯s Jack Dorsey. So too did Biden¡¯s admission in the second debate that he intended to end fossil fuels in America. The third positive observation is that Trump broke even among those who had voted before. Biden¡¯s entire popular vote margin was accounted for by first-time voters. Both observations repeated results from 2016. Trump won October despite the late-breaking Access Hollywood tape; he also lost first-time voters but broke even among all others. With all the focus of political scientists on the race¡¯s fundamentals, it is easy to forget that campaigns and candidates can matter, at least at the margins. President Trump was an exceptionally polarizing figure who mobilized a record number of voters both for and against. Biden won by playing it safe, remaining in his basement for extended periods and frequently declaring an early ¡°lid¡± on his campaigning. Biden¡¯s strategy seemed to have been inspired by Napoleon, who was reported to have remarked that one should never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself. It is also altogether possible that Biden was not capable of greater exertion. But whether due to Napoleonic brilliance or physical and mental exhaustion, Biden¡¯s passivity gave Trump the opportunity to make the election close by mobilizing his enthusiastic supporters. In 1948, ¡°President¡± Tom Dewey found out the hard way that Americans like a scrappy candidate and are reluctant to vote for those who take victory for granted. Biden nearly learned the same lesson. Trump was a live candidate, running a real campaign. Biden was a cardboard cutout who ventured forth so intermittently that it was not an unreasonable question at several junctures whether he was still alive. When he did appear, he steadfastly refused to say anything (except by accident) that would clarify the deliberately muddy picture his campaign had created. Would he condemn violence by BLM and Antifa? I condemn violence. Those white supremacists are nasty. Would he pack the Supreme Court? You¡¯ll find out after the election. In any case, voters don¡¯t deserve to know. It is hardly surprising that a certain subset of voters rebelled, choosing the lively candidate with views that were easy to parse. Not least, Trump nearly came away with a win because of the ongoing advantages reaped by the Republicans from the more efficient distribution of their support within the Electoral College system. Unlike Hillary Clinton in 2016, Joe Biden did not owe his entire popular vote lead and then some to California. Nevertheless, three fourths of his 7 million vote national lead came from the Golden State. Democrats¡¯ refusal to move to the center in either their issue positions or their vice-presidential choice meant that states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada would be hotly contested. Democrats gambled that Biden could rebuild the old ¡°Blue Wall¡± by simply reaping the benefits of Trump¡¯s weaknesses, and it worked. But only barely. Most of the crucial states that flipped were states Trump had won by the skin of his teeth four years before. In 2020 Biden won them the same way. The Issue of Fraud? Of course, no discussion of 2020 would be complete without an assessment of the allegations of massive fraud made¡ªincreasingly intemperately¡ªby the president from the early hours of November 4 on. Two things should be stipulated. One is that fraud does occur in the United States; happy assurances to the contrary are factually wrong, starting with a congressional election in North Carolina as recently as 2018 that was vacated and re-run due to widespread fraud. The other is that Democrats demonstrated over the last four years a willingness to bypass any and all ethical constraints to take down President Trump. Having said that, one has to make distinctions between the varying types of irregularities alleged. The Trump camp, for example, alleged that in many key states there were a large number of votes cast by, or under, the names of ineligible voters. Except for one legal case that is still ongoing in Georgia at this writing, such claims did not hold up in court. Evidence was often shaky, and judges naturally shied away from the draconian remedy of overturning a certified election. In other cases, Trump made the argument that procedures adopted in some states and metropolitan areas established the conditions for fraud, but that is not the same as proving fraud occurred. The most dramatic claim was that industrial-scale fraud took place across multiple states, implicating both local election officials and the Dominion voting system. Indeed, since he needed to flip at least three states, such an expansive claim was necessary to keep Trump¡¯s hopes alive. His supporters brought forth a variety of circumstantial arguments for the claim, but no indisputable hard evidence. Much of the circumstantial evidence was unpersuasive, based on Trump¡¯s wins in the bellwether states of Ohio and Florida (bellwethers are, after all, bellwethers just until they aren¡¯t) or on Joe Biden¡¯s lack of congressional coattails (in 1988, 1992, 2000, and 2016, presidential winners also lost House seats) or on statistical rules that were of limited relevance to elections (Benford¡¯s Law). Some demanded more consideration, including claims that certain spikes in vote reporting contained unreasonably large Biden majorities, but even then it ·É²¹²õ²Ô¡¯³Ù clear that the analysts knew what they were doing, and their numbers were often disputed by other analysts. The Trump legal team itself frequently backtracked on its claims and retracted allegations after making them. On the other hand, a different form of circumstantial evidence strongly pointed toward a lack of widespread fraud. One would expect that if Joe Biden benefited from large-scale fraud, his reported vote percentages would be significantly higher than his showing in exit polls in the same state. However, Biden¡¯s exit poll percentages in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were almost identical to his reported vote count. And, while there has been considerable speculation about Dominion on both sides of the aisle over the years, the one actual case in which votes seemed to be switched¡ªAntrim County, Michigan¡ªdid not prove what Trump¡¯s supporters contended. In fact, an error in vote reporting¡ªnot vote counting¡ªwas caught and quickly corrected, and a hand audit of all Antrim County ballots verified the result in December. A hand recount of ballots in Georgia also confirmed the original result there. In fact, the Trump campaign¡¯s strongest argument had nothing to do with fraud but with the way numerous key states dramatically (and arguably unconstitutionally) altered their voting rules and procedures without consent of the legislature. (The Pennsylvania legislature also adopted an important change that seemed to violate its state constitution.) But these were legal battles that should have been fought months or years before election day. That the president and his team did not, by and large, fight them does not then constitute theft. What Does It All Mean? Political institutions are also closely divided. The presidency and Senate have reverted to Democrats, who also hold the House. But both Biden¡¯s margin in the states that gave him the Electoral College and the division of parties in both houses of Congress are so close that no one can take anything for granted. In a 50-50 Senate, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski are destined to become the Senate¡¯s most pivotal members. State governments remain predominantly in Republican hands, and the federal courts are (for the time being) infused with conservatives. There is no consensus in the country, and our institutions reflect this. Although progressives made gains in 2020, they fell well short of what they had hoped, and Democrats could easily lose control of both House and Senate in 2022. For their part, though they need to assure ballot security, Republicans face risks from a continued focus on fraud, including further alienating suburban voters and accidentally triggering electoral reforms that lead in the direction of a federalization of elections. The historical significance of the election will be unclear for years. It has exposed challenges for both parties, including divisions within them. The battle between establishment Democrats and progressives is just beginning. The struggle between traditional Republicans and Trumpists, largely submerged for most of Trump¡¯s presidency, has been revived by post-election voter fraud disputes and by the Capitol riot of January 6. In certain respects we now have four parties, not two. Things are likely to remain that way for some time. Trump, being Trump, will want to remain in the game. He spoke for many Americans who felt betrayed and left behind, and he showed grassroots Republicans the fighting spirit they craved. His administration also accomplished a number of things that conservatives found praiseworthy, from constitutionalist judicial appointments to regulatory reform to a strong (though sometimes belated) stand against identity politics to formation of the anti-Iranian coalition in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Trump failed to make himself acceptable to a majority, or even a plurality, of Americans. The cold fact remains that he was outpolled by 3 million votes by the most disliked Democratic nominee since polling began (Mrs. Clinton) and by 7 million votes by a mediocre career politician who barely campaigned and who will enter office older than Ronald Reagan was when he left. Even before he gave vent to his most narcissistic and demagogic impulses after November 3, there was simply no reason to believe Trump had the potential to expand his appeal enough to produce a different result. Now, his post-election meltdown threatens to become the dominant memory of his presidency, a descent that outweighs all else. The foremost question for Republicans is whether they will be able to walk an electoral tightrope: apply what worked for Trump and keep his core constituency, while learning how to appeal to a broader electorate and avoiding the taint of January 6. The congressional elections of 2020 might be evidence that they have already started to construct such a political amalgam, and that voters are receptive to it. The next question is whether Donald Trump will let them. ? https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/why-trump-lost/ ¡ª |
|
Re: history - Edward Grey
jim twist
That wasnt a rebuttal , actually it was just heckling , which is not surprising it is what Trump supporters do. Of course there currently? no Trump tower in Moscow, the project was put on hold. I would rebut the rest if there was anything of substance? to rebut.?
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 05:04:01 PM CST, jimntempe via groups.io <jimntempe@...> wrote:
From Mr. Twist... Some of the highlights of what benefitted Russia : the trade war -- If it did, which is hardly a proven fact, it was not the reason for doing it so that's a fail for you. , harming the American ac business , -- even if true it is trivial, if that's the best you can come up with it's pathetic benefitting the Russian ag business. --? again, trivial, esp against the sanctions?Trump imposed and how his expansion of US energy productdion tanked the value of Russia's main money source, oil.? Another fail for you. 2 Turning his back on the Kurds making them run for their lives - Overall the Kurds are doing?just fine thanks.? But even if not, his focus is US interests long term, not the Kurds short term interest.? Again, this is trivial?in the big picture of death and destruction and how many lives were not lost in the bigger picture. Another fail for you. 3 withdrawing support for NATO - false, he didn't withdraw support for NATO, he made them get up off their asses, they are stronger for it. ? 4 Holding aid back from the Ukraine - no one cares. 5 backing out of the Iran deal - a plus. 6 backing out of the Paris accord - another plus.? Nothing but the transfer of US money to the pockets of oligarchs in other countries. 7 straining our relations with China - really comrade?? , Germany France and everyone else ............................. - a laughable concern.?? As to his personal dealings? his debts to Deutche Bank? , backed by Russian oligarchs? , Trump tower Moscow ....that enough ?? All trivial and meaningless crap.?? Is that?all you got?? That SOS from the?first days he was in office, the same nonsense.? BTW, what's the address of Trump Tower Moscow.? When was it built?? When did it open?? It's as imaginary as the rest of your list. |
|
Re: history - Edward Grey
Also, why didn't Trump start a nuclear war, as Nancy Pelosi hinted at, or did the Joint Chiefs of Staff stop that after talking to Pelosi (which means that she saved humanity)? ? Who was he going to attack, if he loved Russia and North Korea as reported on the news? ??
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Finally, why didn't Trump pardon himself, as the news predicted for months that he probably would? Ed On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, jimntempe via <jimntempe=[email protected]> wrote: From Mr. Twist... |
|
Re: history - Edward Grey
From Mr. Twist...
Some of the highlights of what benefitted Russia : the trade war -- If it did, which is hardly a proven fact, it was not the reason for doing it so that's a fail for you. , harming the American ac business , -- even if true it is trivial, if that's the best you can come up with it's pathetic benefitting the Russian ag business. --? again, trivial, esp against the sanctions?Trump imposed and how his expansion of US energy productdion tanked the value of Russia's main money source, oil.? Another fail for you. 2 Turning his back on the Kurds making them run for their lives - Overall the Kurds are doing?just fine thanks.? But even if not, his focus is US interests long term, not the Kurds short term interest.? Again, this is trivial?in the big picture of death and destruction and how many lives were not lost in the bigger picture. Another fail for you. 3 withdrawing support for NATO - false, he didn't withdraw support for NATO, he made them get up off their asses, they are stronger for it. ? 4 Holding aid back from the Ukraine - no one cares. 5 backing out of the Iran deal - a plus. 6 backing out of the Paris accord - another plus.? Nothing but the transfer of US money to the pockets of oligarchs in other countries. 7 straining our relations with China - really comrade?? , Germany France and everyone else ............................. - a laughable concern.?? As to his personal dealings? his debts to Deutche Bank? , backed by Russian oligarchs? , Trump tower Moscow ....that enough ?? All trivial and meaningless crap.?? Is that?all you got?? That SOS from the?first days he was in office, the same nonsense.? BTW, what's the address of Trump Tower Moscow.? When was it built?? When did it open?? It's as imaginary as the rest of your list. |
|
Re: history - Edward Grey
"I am fully aware that there is no longer a USSR , though I dont understand? why you bring that up or think that is relevant. I am fully aware that the plans for a Trump tower in Moscow were put on hold , due to the optics of such a plan. The Kurds were sold out the same minute that Trump tower Istanbul was? approved.? The former Soviet states such as the Ukraine having freed themselves of the USSR are? very much what nNATO is about and need to be a part of it ."
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
jim The reason I reminded you that Russia is not the USSR is that the Democrats seem to think that it is.? Russia has only 1/2 the people that were in the USSR before it broke up, and its current population is 3/4 that of Nigeria, and is dropping and aging fast.? In a few years, Mexico will have more people than Russia.? It's economy is smaller than Canada's or Italy's.? Do we worry about Mexico or Canada?? No.? They are too small, compared to the USA.? Should western Europe and the former Soviet Satellites worry about Russia?? Maybe the Ukraine and some of the weaker ones, but Russia is not the global threat that it was during the Cold War. As for plans for a Trump Tower in Moscow, consider that there are Trump Towers in many countries, so I doubt that one building is going to make much of a difference. ? I don't see the 101st Airborne going into the Ukraine to defend its borders as a part of NATO.? Would you like to see the USA go to a Iranian style quagmire defending former Soviet states from Russian incursions?? Do you think that Germany would be any more effective in stopping Russia in the Ukraine than the UK was when Poland was invaded by the Germans? Yet we treat Russia like the superpower that it never was, and think of the Chinese as the allies that they never were, as we close down factories in the USA and throw Americans out of jobs because they won't work as cheaply as Chinese, whether they're Chinese civilians, Chinese military, or Chinese prisoners; it all seems all right to the Democrats because they feel that a strong China is a stable China and that maybe someday they won't behave badly on the world stage. Ed On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, jim twist via <jimtwist2004=[email protected]> wrote:
|
|
Re: history - Edward Grey
jim twist
I am fully aware that there is no longer a USSR , though I dont understand? why you bring that up or think that is relevant. I am fully aware that the plans for a Trump tower in Moscow were put on hold , due to the optics of such a plan. The Kurds were sold out the same minute that Trump tower Istanbul was? approved.? The former Soviet states such as the Ukraine having freed themselves of the USSR are? very much what nNATO is about and need to be a part of it .?
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 09:09:47 AM CST, Ed Lomas <relomas2@...> wrote:
Russia is not the USSR.? Trump imposed additional sanctions on Russia, compounding their economic problems.? The civil war in Syria was lost.? NATO now includes members of the former Soviet Bloc.? The Iran deal was a fiasco, and not in our interest, since Iran continued to cause trouble after it was signed, so Trump reimposed sanctions on them. Deutsche Bank is a large multinational bank headquartered in Frankfurt.? There are Trump Towers scattered around the world, but none are in Moscow or anywhere else in Russia. Ed? On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, jim twist via <jimtwist2004=[email protected]> wrote:
|
|
Re: Biden's plans
That was jim's list, but I'd add:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
1) Prosecuting doctors who prescribed opioids in mass amounts to people who didn't need them 2) Prosecuting medicare/medicaid fraud 3) Loosening restrictive Obamacare restrictions to make programs available to more rural Americans 4) Increasing the rural areas served by doctors who accept Medicare On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, David Smith <david.smith.mpowered@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Biden's plans
emphatically! Adding to Ed¡¯s list of pluses under Trump, I¡¯d include the brokered peace pacts between Israel and the Arab countries. ¡ª On Jan 19, 2021, at 17:36, mrvnchpmn <chapman@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: history - Edward Grey
Russia is not the USSR.? Trump imposed additional sanctions on Russia, compounding their economic problems.? The civil war in Syria was lost.? NATO now includes members of the former Soviet Bloc.? The Iran deal was a fiasco, and not in our interest, since Iran continued to cause trouble after it was signed, so Trump reimposed sanctions on them.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Deutsche Bank is a large multinational bank headquartered in Frankfurt.? There are Trump Towers scattered around the world, but none are in Moscow or anywhere else in Russia. Ed? On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, jim twist via <jimtwist2004=[email protected]> wrote:
|
|
Re: history - Edward Grey
jim twist
Some of the highlights of what benefitted Russia : the trade war, harming the American ac business , benefitting the Russian ag business. 2 Turning his back on the Kurds making them run for their lives 3 withdrawing support for NATO? 4 Holding aid back from the Ukraine 5 backing out of the Iran deal 6 backing out of the Paris accord 7 straining our relations with China , Germany France and everyone else ............................. As to his personal dealings? his debts to Deutche Bank? , backed by Russian oligarchs? , Trump tower Moscow ....that enough ??
On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 07:58:00 PM CST, jimntempe via groups.io <jimntempe@...> wrote:
Mr. J. Twist.. ?You say Trump's "relationship with Russia is a major concern, in regards to his personal business interests and his policies that go all out to benefit Russia."? Please list those personal business interests that amount to anything more than chump change and which occurred while he was President.? And please tell us which of his many policies go "all out to benefit Russia".? Why don't you tell us how he's helping Russia get their Gas Pipeline built. |
|
Re: politics - Re: [M-Powered] Biden's plans
jim twist
No there are 80 million of us, who understand politics and reality, Matt and I are just representing some of the high I Q? ?portion?
On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 08:34:05 PM CST, David Smith <david.smith.mpowered@...> wrote:
Jim, sometimes I wonder whether you and Matt might be the same person using two different accounts. ¡ª On Jan 19, 2021, at 14:02, jim twist via groups.io <jimtwist2004@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Biden's plans
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýAdding to Ed¡¯s list of pluses under Trump, I¡¯d include the brokered peace pacts between Israel and the Arab countries. ¡ª On Jan 19, 2021, at 17:36, mrvnchpmn <chapman@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: politics - Re: [M-Powered] Biden's plans
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýJim, sometimes I wonder whether you and Matt might be the same person using two different accounts. ¡ª On Jan 19, 2021, at 14:02, jim twist via groups.io <jimtwist2004@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: history - Edward Grey
Mr. J. Twist..
?You say Trump's "relationship with Russia is a major concern, in regards to his personal business interests and his policies that go all out to benefit Russia."? Please list those personal business interests that amount to anything more than chump change and which occurred while he was President.? And please tell us which of his many policies go "all out to benefit Russia".? Why don't you tell us how he's helping Russia get their Gas Pipeline built. |
|
Re: Biden's plans
>>Trump screwed up just about every day.
>>
>>Amy
Which of these things Trump did do you wish he had not done. - kept us out of any new wars - extricated us from or greatly reduced our presence in most of our existing wars - put china on notice we were not going to stand for bad trade policies - got NATO to start paying WHAT THEY AGREED to pay but never have - presided over the lowest MINORITY unemployment ever - get the first major prison reform legislation?in years which helped the minorities a great deal - made administrative changes that lowered drug prices and facilitated?the purchase of drugs from other countries at lower prices. - made "right to try" drugs for terminal patients a reality - made significant advancements to advance peace in the middle east - made the US a net energy exporter for the first time in decades - renegotiated NAFTA to get better terms for the US while keeping job protections for those in other countries. - created Space Force to counter the moves by China to militarize space - created the first real (adjusted for inflation) increase in middle class income in about a decade - simplified the tax code and reduced taxes for the bulk of the middle class Those are a few things from the top of my head. For a complete list go to? I'd be curious which of those many things you think was a mistake that Biden needs to reverse. |