Election 2020

[Charles Austin]

I sincerely doubt that there is anything that could be considered an impeachable offense in the Biden camp. There were such things in the Trump White House, but he got away with them.

[David Garner]

I am a gun owner and a hunter, so gun rights are a priority item for me in terms of governmental regulation.  That said, as a gun owner I live with a certain amount of regulation that most gun owners accept, and we are willing to discuss other reasonable regulations.  Much of Biden's current platform on which he ran feels excessive to me.  I am trusting that most of it will not see the light of day if it is proposed to the House.  With the tighter margins of the existing majority I don't think that radical gun control measures will have any more chance of becoming a reality than they did under Obama.  But there are always ways to improve existing regulation that can be discussed.  But Biden has to be willing to back away from his previous agenda and meet the other side where they are at.

The problem with gun regulation in general is the people most passionate about passing the regulation know the least about guns and their use.  And the people supporting them know less than they do.

Combine that with literally 30+ years of active lying by gun control proponents and their compliant and uncritical mouthpieces in the media and the Democratic Party, and you have a situation where gun owners don't trust them. 

I got an 8 point buck on Tuesday, my first ever antlered deer.  I used a Remington 870 in .270 Winchester.  But if my daughter goes with me next season, she's likely to use an AR-15.  Joe Biden is a demagogue when it comes to AR-15s, so pardon me if I don't consider him the voice of reason.  Beyond that, he is the guy who literally said if an intruder came to his house, he'd advise his wife to take a 2 shot weapon, leave the safety of her home, and empty it.  Maybe he isn't the best person to discuss gun policy in this country.

[peter_speckhard]

Pastor Fienen writes:
So "Socialist" Sanders (that is what he calls himself) is just smoke? "The Squad" is just smoke? The Democrats who have declared a revolution are just smoke? There are extremists in the Democratic Party just as there are extremists on the right in the Republican Party. Neither extreme is the whole of either party and, much as they would like to think so, neither extreme is really the "real" Democrats or Republicans. If the Democrats want to effectively govern, they will now need to restrain their more extreme factions and govern more from the middle, not merely deploring and excoriating those who did not vote for him but also listening to them and steer a more moderate course. Let us see if Biden can keep his campaign pledge and govern not as the Democratic President but the American President.
I comment:
And it will help, Pastor Fienen, if those of us in the trenches give him a chance, help him when we can and not – repeat not – dwell on or wallow in words like “socialist,” or fret about a few young legislators, “The Squad,” and keep alive every memory of any alleged statement or suggestion made during the heat of a campaign. Nor will it help to keep raising unnecessary fears based on what minor players may have said.

JEdwards writes:
In general, Trump ran behind other Republicans nationwide.  To the extent that any close election can send a message, I think it is that this was more a repudiation of the Trump personality than of his policies.
I comment:
I’m sure analysts are already trying to find ways to spot this in the vote totals. Why did Republicans do well, but not the president? Did many people split their ticket, voting for Biden, then voting for Republicans on the state level? A repudiation of the Trumpocracy would be a good sign for the future of the party. I noticed that key leaders of the party did not sign on to his most recent rant about the voting process, but then some time passed, and I think someone – McConnell probably – told a few minions to “get out there! Say something to support Him!”
And they signed on to his anti-democracy lies.
No, I will not recant those words. That Trump rant was an assault on our country, using lies to cast doubts on the sacred process of voting. Coming from a President in office at a time like this, it was more than his usual ego-trip. But one almost feels sorry for him; because he does not even begin to comprehend what he did, how it profaned his office and how that screed hurt us.

Biden said Trump's Charlotte comments are what made him run in the first place. I suspect Republicans will do slightly to drastically better than the Dems have done in not dwelling on and wallowing in and fretting about alleged words spoken years ago and long since explained in a way that debunks the Biden "Trump=hate" narrative. But I could be wrong on that. Memories are long. 

[Brian Stoffregen]

About the flakiest thing I witnessed was an election clerk (not judge) who voted denying she had a valid photo ID despite admitting she received a traffic citation on the way to work that day.  She presented a photo Id driver’s license to the officer ... but not claimed not to have a photo it to vote ... probably a case of perjured herself.

You can receive a ticket without a driver's license. The ticked will probably include the charge of driving without a license.


Also, having a valid photo ID doesn't mean one gets to vote. Here we have to have a voter registration card which includes an ID number. Our signature also has to match the one on file.


From what I understand, someone whose credentials are suspect, have their ballot placed in a provisional file. It is not counted until the person's right to vote is verified.

[D. Engebretson]

I am a gun owner and a hunter, so gun rights are a priority item for me in terms of governmental regulation.  That said, as a gun owner I live with a certain amount of regulation that most gun owners accept, and we are willing to discuss other reasonable regulations.  Much of Biden's current platform on which he ran feels excessive to me.  I am trusting that most of it will not see the light of day if it is proposed to the House.  With the tighter margins of the existing majority I don't think that radical gun control measures will have any more chance of becoming a reality than they did under Obama.  But there are always ways to improve existing regulation that can be discussed.  But Biden has to be willing to back away from his previous agenda and meet the other side where they are at.

The problem with gun regulation in general is the people most passionate about passing the regulation know the least about guns and their use.  And the people supporting them know less than they do.

Combine that with literally 30+ years of active lying by gun control proponents and their compliant and uncritical mouthpieces in the media and the Democratic Party, and you have a situation where gun owners don't trust them. 

I got an 8 point buck on Tuesday, my first ever antlered deer.  I used a Remington 870 in .270 Winchester.  But if my daughter goes with me next season, she's likely to use an AR-15.  Joe Biden is a demagogue when it comes to AR-15s, so pardon me if I don't consider him the voice of reason.  Beyond that, he is the guy who literally said if an intruder came to his house, he'd advise his wife to take a 2 shot weapon, leave the safety of her home, and empty it.  Maybe he isn't the best person to discuss gun policy in this country.

I face another possible dilemma if Biden acts on some of his proposed policies, especially the one involving what are considered "high capacity magazines."  I have a S&W 9mm and a Marlin semi-auto .22 that both have magazines capable of well over 10.  Neither are assault weapons by any stretch, but I know that gun control advocates do not understand this concept well and tend to target things they should just leave alone.  So I share your hesitancy, realizing my guarded optimism is probably too heavily laced with naiveté.

BTW - congratulations on the deer!  I have yet to bag an antlered deer, although I sat almost face-to-face with one last week.  He came over a ridge and we were both caught off guard.

[Brian Stoffregen]

As the results get ever closer to a final count, it continues to appear that Biden will gain the 270 needed.  I know there will be wrangling over irregularities, recounts, etc., but I'm already looking ahead now to what the new political landscape signifies at least for the next two years.

Since the "blue wave" did not materialize, regardless of last minute final vote counts, the dynamics of governance will be far less one sided (than perhaps hoped in some quarters), or, for that matter, "progressive".  In a highly divisive country our leaders will need to find a way to govern without appealing to or appeasing the edges.  Unless we are going to live in perpetual gridlock for the next couple of years - or longer - they need to find a way to move to middle ground and talk.  I don't think that personalities like Sanders or AOC or "The Squad" can be the front runners in this new era of governance.  If they are government will be essentially ineffective on the really large issues it needs to address and move forward on.

So the "Green Deal" will have to give way to more politically realistic energy policies.  "Medicare For All" will have to be set aside for a more balanced discussion on health care.  Approaches to funding law enforcement will have to back away from the idea of "defunding".  Yes, there may be sectors of our country itching for big, radical moves away from the 'way we've always done it.' But there are also sectors in this country who do not side with the progressive agenda.  Look at the very, very tight race we are in at the moment.  Even if Biden wins, and I'm still conceding that he will, the margin of victory hardly signals a mandate to steamroll over the red of this country as if they do not count.  If he is serious about governing as a president that represents all people, then he cannot adopt all his stump policies as is.

It will be interesting to see if Biden can move, like Bill Clinton, more to the middle to govern.  His platform going into the election was touted as the most progressive as any to date.  But now he will have to be a president "for all the people."  Can he do it?  Can he work in a deeply divided country without widening the division even more?

On the other side, QAnon supporter Marjorie Greene was elected to congress in Georgia. Extremist on either side are not likely to get their way, but their voices will be heard (at least for a term). Like when Tea Party candidates won a few years ago.

[Randy Bosch]

Several media have noted the almost complete cessation of talk about campaign finance reform, Citizens United, and dark money by the Democrats recently.
Why?

The Democratic Party is now the Party of really big money.  Bloomberg: allegedly spent $1billion on his primary challenge, $100million in Florida alone for the General Election.  The Democrat Senate challenger in South Carolina received $103million for his campaign, almost all out-of-state money.  Less but still huge amounts ladled out to try to defeat incumbent Republican Senators assumed to be weak, in a number of states.  California and Washington State plutocrats shelled out hundreds of millions for out-of-state races.  And that was just individuals, not including the huge super PACs.

A few media are comparing the IT/Silicon Valley billionaires to the early 1900's Railroad/Oil/Steel Barons, but without the monopoly busting legislation in place that eventually shackled those earlier barons and busted the trusts.

New Century, same issues. 

[James S. Rustad]

I got an 8 point buck on Tuesday, my first ever antlered deer.  I used a Remington 870 in .270 Winchester.  But if my daughter goes with me next season, she's likely to use an AR-15.  Joe Biden is a demagogue when it comes to AR-15s, so pardon me if I don't consider him the voice of reason.  Beyond that, he is the guy who literally said if an intruder came to his house, he'd advise his wife to take a 2 shot weapon, leave the safety of her home, and empty it.  Maybe he isn't the best person to discuss gun policy in this country.

Ummm.  A Remington 870?  In .270 Winchester?

[Richard Johnson]

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans can avoid following the example of the Democrats from the last election and spend the next four years resisting the election past as the Democrats did the last four years. They did not set a good example for Republicans to follow. I suspect that in politics as in parenting "Do as I say, not as I do" does not work well.

The example of the Republicans following the election of Obama does not suggest that they'll be any more cooperative this time. Remember "Our goal is to make him a one-term president"?

[D. Engebretson]

As the results get ever closer to a final count, it continues to appear that Biden will gain the 270 needed.  I know there will be wrangling over irregularities, recounts, etc., but I'm already looking ahead now to what the new political landscape signifies at least for the next two years.

Since the "blue wave" did not materialize, regardless of last minute final vote counts, the dynamics of governance will be far less one sided (than perhaps hoped in some quarters), or, for that matter, "progressive".  In a highly divisive country our leaders will need to find a way to govern without appealing to or appeasing the edges.  Unless we are going to live in perpetual gridlock for the next couple of years - or longer - they need to find a way to move to middle ground and talk.  I don't think that personalities like Sanders or AOC or "The Squad" can be the front runners in this new era of governance.  If they are government will be essentially ineffective on the really large issues it needs to address and move forward on.

So the "Green Deal" will have to give way to more politically realistic energy policies.  "Medicare For All" will have to be set aside for a more balanced discussion on health care.  Approaches to funding law enforcement will have to back away from the idea of "defunding".  Yes, there may be sectors of our country itching for big, radical moves away from the 'way we've always done it.' But there are also sectors in this country who do not side with the progressive agenda.  Look at the very, very tight race we are in at the moment.  Even if Biden wins, and I'm still conceding that he will, the margin of victory hardly signals a mandate to steamroll over the red of this country as if they do not count.  If he is serious about governing as a president that represents all people, then he cannot adopt all his stump policies as is.

It will be interesting to see if Biden can move, like Bill Clinton, more to the middle to govern.  His platform going into the election was touted as the most progressive as any to date.  But now he will have to be a president "for all the people."  Can he do it?  Can he work in a deeply divided country without widening the division even more?

On the other side, QAnon supporter Marjorie Greene was elected to congress in Georgia. Extremist on either side are not likely to get their way, but their voices will be heard (at least for a term). Like when Tea Party candidates won a few years ago.

Well, we've been listening to "The Squad" now for a while, so I'm sure Ms. Green can't be any more difficult to deal with.  Anyway, I'd be surprised if any in the mainstream media give her any attention now that they have a Democrat in power.  I'm predicting they will largely ignore her.

[aletheist]

Remember "Our goal is to make him a one-term president"?

That is always a major goal of either party after a new president from the other party is elected. The Democrats just changed it to "less than one-term" in the case of Trump.

[Richard Johnson]

That said, I do hope the Republicans are more responsible than the Democrats were in dealing with cabinet appointees. The longtime "rule" has been that a President is entitled to choose his advisors, unless they are totally bonkers. Only about 5 of Trump's were confirmed with what was essentially a strong bipartisan vote (though all were confirmed). I hope Republicans act more grown up than that.

I would personally like to see one or both of two things happen. First, I think Biden should sit down with McConnell (with whom he served in the Senate for decades) and say, "Look, we need to address this partisan polarization. Let's figure out how we can avoid party-line votes as much as possible, and try to get some things done." Second, I think the handful of GOP Senators who have demonstrated concern about this issue (Romney, Collins, Murkowski, maybe Sasse and a few others) should say to McConnell, "We're not going to play these games any more. We need to tone down the partisan divisiveness."

All of this also, of course, presupposes that Biden tries to govern as he campaigned, as a moderate who wants to tone down the divisiveness and overcome the gridlock. So no cabinet post for AOC, etc.

Alas, I don't really think any of those things will happen--in part because, though Trump has (apparently) been defeated, Trumpism has not, and there is a strong and vocal group that will start screaming "RINO" at any GOP Senator who tries to work with Biden. (There are also leftie Dems who will complain about Biden working with McConnell, but I think he will be more resistant to them; after all, he's the president, and I seriously doubt he's thinking about needing to run again.)

[Richard Johnson]

Remember "Our goal is to make him a one-term president"?

That is always a major goal of either party after a new president from the other party is elected. The Democrats just changed it to "less than one-term" in the case of Trump.

Too bad for the GOP they didn't succeed. If Trump had been convicted, I suspect Pence would have easily won this election.

[Brian Stoffregen]

As the results get ever closer to a final count, it continues to appear that Biden will gain the 270 needed.  I know there will be wrangling over irregularities, recounts, etc., but I'm already looking ahead now to what the new political landscape signifies at least for the next two years.

Since the "blue wave" did not materialize, regardless of last minute final vote counts, the dynamics of governance will be far less one sided (than perhaps hoped in some quarters), or, for that matter, "progressive".  In a highly divisive country our leaders will need to find a way to govern without appealing to or appeasing the edges.  Unless we are going to live in perpetual gridlock for the next couple of years - or longer - they need to find a way to move to middle ground and talk.  I don't think that personalities like Sanders or AOC or "The Squad" can be the front runners in this new era of governance.  If they are government will be essentially ineffective on the really large issues it needs to address and move forward on.

So the "Green Deal" will have to give way to more politically realistic energy policies.  "Medicare For All" will have to be set aside for a more balanced discussion on health care.  Approaches to funding law enforcement will have to back away from the idea of "defunding".  Yes, there may be sectors of our country itching for big, radical moves away from the 'way we've always done it.' But there are also sectors in this country who do not side with the progressive agenda.  Look at the very, very tight race we are in at the moment.  Even if Biden wins, and I'm still conceding that he will, the margin of victory hardly signals a mandate to steamroll over the red of this country as if they do not count.  If he is serious about governing as a president that represents all people, then he cannot adopt all his stump policies as is.

It will be interesting to see if Biden can move, like Bill Clinton, more to the middle to govern.  His platform going into the election was touted as the most progressive as any to date.  But now he will have to be a president "for all the people."  Can he do it?  Can he work in a deeply divided country without widening the division even more?

On the other side, QAnon supporter Marjorie Greene was elected to congress in Georgia. Extremist on either side are not likely to get their way, but their voices will be heard (at least for a term). Like when Tea Party candidates won a few years ago.

Well, we've been listening to "The Squad" now for a while, so I'm sure Ms. Green can't be any more difficult to deal with.  Anyway, I'd be surprised if any in the mainstream media give her any attention now that they have a Democrat in power.  I'm predicting they will largely ignore her.

If congress is "normal," we would expect them to fall within a "normal" bell shaped graph. This means we would expect a few people at the extreme ends. Slightly more than 2/3rds of a normal population fall with 1 standard deviation of the middle (or average); 34.14% on each side of the average. Putting on my statistical hat: if the 535 members of congress are a normal population, we would expect that:
365 would fall within 1 standard deviation from the center, i.e., slightly right and left.
145 would fall between 1 and 2 standard deviations from the center, i.e., moderately right and left
23 would fall between 3 and 4 standard deviations from the center, strongly right and left
1.4 would be beyond 4 standard deviations form the center, extremely right and left.


If they are even somewhat close to that, the vast majority are in the center area and will make good, rational decisions for the benefit of the whole population.

[Brian Stoffregen]

All of this also, of course, presupposes that Biden tries to govern as he campaigned, as a moderate who wants to tone down the divisiveness and overcome the gridlock. So no cabinet post for AOC, etc.

Although that would remove her from speaking and voting in the House.