Election 2020

[Jim Butler]

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.

Trump has a very loyal base. They would have felt betrayed by the GOP Senators and would have stayed home. Some would have even voted for a Democrat out of sheer spite.

Pence would have lost, badly. The GOP would have lost the Senate along with it.

As it is, Biden will eke out a win, but he won't have much of a mandate. He will have to compromise a lot to get anything through the Senate and the Speaker of the House will have to do the same to get anything through the House.

When was the last time that the candidate of one party was elected President while his party lost seats in the House?

[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.

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

Easily? Although some (including me) did not vote for Trump but would have gladly voted for Pence, I highly doubt that he would have made it nearly as close as Trump did in the "blue wall" states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin). He likely would have won Georgia and Arizona, but that would not have been enough.

In any case, if Trump had been convicted by two-thirds of the Senate, it would have been a travesty. There was no credible evidence of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as required by the Constitution for removing him from office.

[aletheist]

When was the last time that the candidate of one party was elected President while his party lost seats in the House?

Four years ago--Republicans lost six House seats in 2016. However, this is the first time since 1884 that a Democrat was elected President without a Senate majority during the first two years of his term, assuming that the Republican candidate wins at least one of the two Georgia runoffs.

[peter_speckhard]

I'll bet I've read a hundred articles in the last four years-- news and opinion pieces-- that mention the fact that Trump's taking of the blue wall in 2016 was by very slim margin and that if only a small number of voters had changed their minds in three states, Clinton would have won. 2020 is even closer. Had Trump won AZ, PA, and GA, he would be president. He looks to have lost them each, assuming he indeed has, by a whisker, not to mention NV and WI being very, very close as well. By the "how many voters would have needed to switch in key states" metric, he came closer to winning this one than Clinton did last time.

The problem for Biden is that unless he apologizes for his own and his party's constant demonization of his opponents as racist and sexist and actually manages a "Sista Soldja" kind of rebuke to the Woke Left, he will remain toxic to conservatives and the divisions will solidify. 

[James J Eivan]

The President spoke to the nation ... or attempted to.   Similar to early Wednesday morning, the MSM preempted the President ...first ABC ... next NBC ... finally CBS.

For the entire Thursday Presidential speech ... beginning 20:30 into the video...

https://m.youtube.com/watcv=ni40sjwxjDg

The afternoon Sean Hannity radio program promises that the 8p eastern Sean Hannity program on Fox will provide concrete evidence of voter irregularities and other legal issues that will have to be resolved before the final voting results can be certified.

Without access to Fox News, look for YouTube segments afterwards.

The day we entrust our fact checking to tyrannical big tech,Twitter specifically, the country has lost its soul!🤐

Trivia for those who watch Fox News.   One of my daughters was the voter registrar when Sean Hannity cast his vote on Tuesday.

Until two daughters were registrars this election I had no idea of what is involved in the job.  Both had to be up at five and worked long into the night.One reported the problem with the Sharpie pens the government provided.  They were not replaced until late in the afternoon.  Other states reported problems with the pens.

Waiting patiently for news of who will be our next president..

Marie Meyer

Likewise ... and I was not aware how different the process is ... our county had very few paper ballots ... very little opportunity for manipulation. 

During early voting, I would assist in auditing the previous days paper work ... if 500 people signed the log coming in the door ... there has better have been an increase of 500 votes on the machines ... no more .. no less ... or we had to account for it.

One year I spent the 2 1/2 working days before thanksgiving investigating what appeared to be double voting by individual voters ... I don’t recall not being convinced that a double vote not occur under the circumstances I was investigating.

There wasn’t much for observers to watch on election night ... pull a Memory card out of the master machine from each polling location slip it in a card reader ... software prevents reading the card twice ... I don’t think I ever witnessed the process despite being in the building until counting was completed. Later the onboard memory of these master machines and each individual Electronic voting slate is backed up and compared ... the memory card, the onboard memory and the individual totals of each voting eslate better agree .. checks and balances all around

I’m thankfully your daughter was observant and conscientious enough to report the sharpie pen problem.  Hopefully there will not be any retribution ... perhaps these polling places were far enough from the apparent questionable activities in PA

[Dan Fienen]

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.)

Like the Democrats who complained about Sen. Feinstein being polite to Republicans during the ACB confirmation hearings and suggesting that she should resign from the judiciary committee because of that politeness.


I hope that republicans would have learned some lessons and act better than the Democrats did during Trump's time in office and better than Republicans acted during the Obama years, but those hopes are about as slim as the margins in this election. When will politicians and the people who criticize them recognize that one can strongly support policy goals and principles without being nasty or play scorched earth politics - we get our way or we will try to make sure nothing gets done.

[JEdwards]

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.

Your math is wrong.  Again.  In a normal distribution, 0.3% of the population is more than 3 standard deviations from the mean.  535 x 0.003 = 1.6, which is considerably smaller than 24.4 that you claim.

Peace,
Jon

[peter_speckhard]

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.)

Like the Democrats who complained about Sen. Feinstein being polite to Republicans during the ACB confirmation hearings and suggesting that she should resign from the judiciary committee because of that politeness.


I hope that republicans would have learned some lessons and act better than the Democrats did during Trump's time in office and better than Republicans acted during the Obama years, but those hopes are about as slim as the margins in this election. When will politicians and the people who criticize them recognize that one can strongly support policy goals and principles without being nasty or play scorched earth politics - we get our way or we will try to make sure nothing gets done.

Agreed. I think most people agree. The issue is what constitutes scorched earth. To me, classifying everyone as racist or anti-racist is scorched earth. To many on the left, that is just the fact of the matter, so they don't think they've engaged in the type of scorched earth politics they deplore when the other side thinks they have. To the left, voting on Barrett was scorched earth. To the right, it was simple politics. To the right, the Kavanaugh debacle was as scorched earth as it gets. To the left, it was an important discussion that involved a few broken eggs for the sake of the omelete, and everyone should just accept that sort of thing periodically and move on.

[mariemeyer]

Peter writes.."To me, classifying everyone as racist or anti-racist is scorched earth. To many on the left, that is just the fact of the matter, so they don't think they've engaged in the type of scorched earth politics they deplore when the other side thinks they have."


Who has classified "everyone" as racist?  Who are the "many on the left" who think this is "just a matter of fact." 

Please explain .... "To many on the left, that is just the fact of the matter, so they don't think they've engaged in the type of scorched earth politics they deplore when the other side thinks they have." 

Might we, for a few more days, take a deep breath and cease the divisive blame game that will not contribute to the healing our nation needs.

Marie

[peter_speckhard]

Peter writes.."To me, classifying everyone as racist or anti-racist is scorched earth. To many on the left, that is just the fact of the matter, so they don't think they've engaged in the type of scorched earth politics they deplore when the other side thinks they have."


Who has classified "everyone" as racist?  Who are the "many on the left" who think this is "just a matter of fact." 

Please explain .... "To many on the left, that is just the fact of the matter, so they don't think they've engaged in the type of scorched earth politics they deplore when the other side thinks they have." 

Might we, for a few more days, take a deep breath and cease the divisive blame game that will not contribute to the healing our nation needs.

Marie

Marie, if I find and link here to voices on the Left who think that if you are not actively anti-racist, then you are racist, will you join me in publicly condemning such voices and calling for people not to listen to them anymore? Or would I just be wasting my time?

[Dan Fienen]

Peter writes.."To me, classifying everyone as racist or anti-racist is scorched earth. To many on the left, that is just the fact of the matter, so they don't think they've engaged in the type of scorched earth politics they deplore when the other side thinks they have."


Who has classified "everyone" as racist?  Who are the "many on the left" who think this is "just a matter of fact." 

Please explain .... "To many on the left, that is just the fact of the matter, so they don't think they've engaged in the type of scorched earth politics they deplore when the other side thinks they have." 

Might we, for a few more days, take a deep breath and cease the divisive blame game that will not contribute to the healing our nation needs.

Marie

I suspect that what Peter meant to say was something more like "to many on the left everyone who is to the right of me is a racist."

[David Garner]

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?

My bad -- Remington 700.

I don't own an 870, but I would love to have one someday.

[David Garner]

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.

Thanks!  I got so very lucky -- it shouldn't have been mine in the first place.  I went with my neighbor.  His son was supposed to go but he didn't feel like it.  We certainly would have given him the shot otherwise.

Then my neighbor asked if I wanted to take the shot or him.  I deferred.  He lined up and..........*click*.

The deer flinched and took a few steps and stopped again, broadside.  Not wanting it to get away, I took the shot at that point.  I thought it was a nice sized six pointer.  Turned out to be an absolute monster of an eight pointer.  I don't hunt for trophies at all, but this being the first, it's a wall hanger.

[peter_speckhard]

Peter writes.."To me, classifying everyone as racist or anti-racist is scorched earth. To many on the left, that is just the fact of the matter, so they don't think they've engaged in the type of scorched earth politics they deplore when the other side thinks they have."


Who has classified "everyone" as racist?  Who are the "many on the left" who think this is "just a matter of fact." 

Please explain .... "To many on the left, that is just the fact of the matter, so they don't think they've engaged in the type of scorched earth politics they deplore when the other side thinks they have." 

Might we, for a few more days, take a deep breath and cease the divisive blame game that will not contribute to the healing our nation needs.

Marie

I suspect that what Peter meant to say was something more like "to many on the left everyone who is to the right of me is a racist."

No, I meant that using the either/or of racist/anti-racist is itself scorched earth politics.

[DeHall1]

Peter writes.."To me, classifying everyone as racist or anti-racist is scorched earth. To many on the left, that is just the fact of the matter, so they don't think they've engaged in the type of scorched earth politics they deplore when the other side thinks they have."


Who has classified "everyone" as racist?  Who are the "many on the left" who think this is "just a matter of fact." 

Please explain .... "To many on the left, that is just the fact of the matter, so they don't think they've engaged in the type of scorched earth politics they deplore when the other side thinks they have." 

Might we, for a few more days, take a deep breath and cease the divisive blame game that will not contribute to the healing our nation needs.

Marie

"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.”

― Terry Pratchett, Jingo