2020 US Election (Part One)

[Gorbles]

I like how people simultaneously pretend there was nothing to see in the emails and that the dump was harmful.

I don't know what this stems from, and as I don't like to assume I could easily be getting this wrong, but I'm guessing this stems from the perspective that Sanders was indeed cheated out of something?

The contents of the emails can say any number of things, but given the intentions behind releasing it, we might never see the full context. To assume context from what was revealed (bearing in mind the top Google results in 2019 around WL and the DNC hack are still primarily right-wing outlets - and I say this as a Brit, with regular work-based browsing cookies) is therefore playing into the intentions of the folks that did benefit from the leak.

Are you saying wikileaks have it in for the DNC in particular?

I wouldn't say in particular, no. Probably more accurate to say they were used against the DNC specifically around this topic, but willingly used seems rather likely.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't know what this stems from, and as I don't like to assume I could easily be getting this wrong, but I'm guessing this stems from the perspective that Sanders was indeed cheated out of something?

It refers to the fact that Hillary supporters typically claim that Hillary lost the election in part because of the Wikileaks disclosures, while simultaneously claiming that nothing improper was revealed by those disclosures.

 

[Naskra]

Voters in Warren County, which is 61 percent black, saw 83 percent of their polling locations shut down

Warren Co. has <2500 voters, a three week window for early voting, and vote-by-mail. One polling station looks like saturation coverage, not voter suppression.

 

[Arakhor]

One polling station in the entire county is saturation coverage? Is it Opposites Day again?

 

[Socrates99]

Warren Co. has <2500 voters, a three week window for early voting, and vote-by-mail. One polling station looks like saturation coverage, not voter suppression.

One polling station for 2500 voters? The intent is to make lines so long during the after work rush that it discourages the blue collar voters from bothering. It can also suppress the vote if the polling station is somewhere on the edge of the district where voters without reliable transportation have difficulty getting to.

 

[El_Machinae]

Nah, at this point, it's all Republicans. If they weren't part of the problem in a major and acute way they would have defected to the Democrats 2 or 3 years ago.

I'm creating space to allow the Republican resistance

 

[El_Machinae]

Warren Co. has <2500 voters, a three week window for early voting, and vote-by-mail. One polling station looks like saturation coverage, not voter suppression.

What's your per capita recommendation for number of voters per polling station?

 

[Gorbles]

It refers to the fact that Hillary supporters typically claim that Hillary lost the election in part because of the Wikileaks disclosures, while simultaneously claiming that nothing improper was revealed by those disclosures.

Fair enough. I'd imagine the contents of these emails regardless could be twisted to make the DNC look bad. There doesn't have to be anything improper in there to manufacture outrage about it. How long did the maligning of the insecure server go on for before it was revealed a ton of other (Republicans, including the subsequent administration) were guilty of the same thing?

The WikiLeaks discloures definitely affected the election. I'm surprised this is an arguable point. We've seen how effective misinformation can be around left-leaning things (like "socialism"), is it really a stretch to assume Hillary Clinton (while in no-way left-leaning, is still viewed in opposition to right-leaning parties) fell victim to the same?

I mean, even if "improper" stuff was in there, it seems a weird thing for you and Socrates to use as a jibe (not at me, more in general) because this seems like of purity politics. Politicians are never going to be above reproach. What matters are the differences between them, and also how their more crappy activities are obscured or outright lied about.

I'm saying this in the context of you knowing my political leanings. I'm not using "purity politics" as a stand-in for "excuse a problematic person of definitely problematic conduct".

 

[Estebonrober]

Warren Co. has <2500 voters, a three week window for early voting, and vote-by-mail. One polling station looks like saturation coverage, not voter suppression.

One white suburban male, one vote GOP 2020.

Whatever happened to no taxation without representation? I thought you guys believed in rule of law and consent of the governed. Nvm that's all just farcical nonsense for you, 'Murica!

 

[Farm Boy]

What's your per capita recommendation for number of voters per polling station?

Last time we dug in the numbers the rural districts and counties to the west of DeKalb, IL* seemed to have pretty comparable actualized voting rates to DeKalb county GA?

*I think I was mostly digging in Lee County voting records.

 

[Lexicus]

Fair enough. I'd imagine the contents of these emails regardless could be twisted to make the DNC look bad. There doesn't have to be anything improper in there to manufacture outrage about it. How long did the maligning of the insecure server go on for before it was revealed a ton of other (Republicans, including the subsequent administration) were guilty of the same thing?

The WikiLeaks discloures definitely affected the election. I'm surprised this is an arguable point. We've seen how effective misinformation can be around left-leaning things (like "socialism"), is it really a stretch to assume Hillary Clinton (while in no-way left-leaning, is still viewed in opposition to right-leaning parties) fell victim to the same?

I mean, even if "improper" stuff was in there, it seems a weird thing for you and Socrates to use as a jibe (not at me, more in general) because this seems like of purity politics. Politicians are never going to be above reproach. What matters are the differences between them, and also how their more crappy activities are obscured or outright lied about.

I'm saying this in the context of you knowing my political leanings. I'm not using "purity politics" as a stand-in for "excuse a problematic person of definitely problematic conduct".

I'm not disputing that the Wikileaks thing affected the election, but that's because it really did reveal things that made the DNC look bad. While I obviously believe claims that the primary was "rigged" are overblown and silly, the fact remains that there is something rotten in the Democratic Party.

In essence, it is a mistake to view the Democrats as a political party in the conventional sense. The Republican Party has an ideological platform and it fights to win and exercise power so that it can implement its ideology, carry out its platform. Leading Democrats insist that the Democrats have no ideology- which is sort of true insofar as the Democratic Party exists primarily to funnel cash from wealthy donors to a group of well-connected and favored political consultants. The leaders of the Democratic Party don't particularly care about the Republicans winning election, because that will never threaten their careers.

By contrast, Bernie Sanders and AOC represent a political model that poses an existential threat to Nancy Pelosi's model of politics. Nancy Pelosi is widely praised by Democrats for her ability to convince rich people to give money to the Democratic Party. That and "disciplining" the party to prevent the emergence of any hint of left challenge to the wealth and power of those people she fundraises from is the entire basis of her career and has been her whole life's work.

Bernie and AOC, if they are successful in remaking the Democratic Party, will sweep this model of poltics into oblivion, at least at the national level. So it's my contention that the Democratic leadership would rather see Republicans win than concede control of the party to the Bernie-AOC types. Republicans in power enact policies that only give wealthy people more power to control the party and thus the party will need people like Nancy Pelosi forever.

 

[Naskra]

One polling station for 2500 voters? The intent is to make lines so long during the after work rush that it discourages the blue collar voters

If you ever see a line in Warrenton, Ga, it a mayonnaise sale, not an election.

 

[El_Machinae]

If you ever see a line in Warrenton, Ga, it a mayonnaise sale, not an election.

What's your recommendation for walking distance to a polling station?

 

[Farm Boy]

We do about 35 square miles.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm not disputing that the Wikileaks thing affected the election, but that's because it really did reveal things that made the DNC look bad. While I obviously believe claims that the primary was "rigged" are overblown and silly, the fact remains that there is something rotten in the Democratic Party.

In essence, it is a mistake to view the Democrats as a political party in the conventional sense. The Republican Party has an ideological platform and it fights to win and exercise power so that it can implement its ideology, carry out its platform. Leading Democrats insist that the Democrats have no ideology- which is sort of true insofar as the Democratic Party exists primarily to funnel cash from wealthy donors to a group of well-connected and favored political consultants. The leaders of the Democratic Party don't particularly care about the Republicans winning election, because that will never threaten their careers.

By contrast, Bernie Sanders and AOC represent a political model that poses an existential threat to Nancy Pelosi's model of politics. Nancy Pelosi is widely praised by Democrats for her ability to convince rich people to give money to the Democratic Party. That and "disciplining" the party to prevent the emergence of any hint of left challenge to the wealth and power of those people she fundraises from is the entire basis of her career and has been her whole life's work.

Bernie and AOC, if they are successful in remaking the Democratic Party, will sweep this model of poltics into oblivion, at least at the national level. So it's my contention that the Democratic leadership would rather see Republicans win than concede control of the party to the Bernie-AOC types. Republicans in power enact policies that only give wealthy people more power to control the party and thus the party will need people like Nancy Pelosi forever.

I definitely agree insofar as Pelosi and AOC, and the dynamics between those parts of the Democratic party, but Sanders is a bit of a separate question.

The Democrats as a party are screwed and need to change, I agree with that wholeheartedly. But that doesn't also mean that Hillary wasn't prevented from a real win (and don't even get me started on the Electoral College, or Trump's subsequent flat-out lies about the popular vote). Both of these things are real, and Pelosi's very real faults exist alongside them.

My issue with Sanders are varied, I'm no fan of the "Bernie stan" derogatory stereotype, but there are obviously parts of his base that would have real trouble voting for someone like, say, AOC (in a theoretical future where she's a frontrunner) over even Trump (or, if the RNC wise up when Trump inevitably careens out of office, a more moderately-presented Republican candidate). My issues with Sanders specifically stem from a seeming lack of support for sex workers and nuance around other marginalised issues. I'm not saying Warren is necessarily perfect on these issues either, but as a Brit with an Opinion she seems to be doing at least a little better (and certainly seems to be scaring Wall Street, which is always good fun).

tl;dr: if Sanders somehow got "in", I wouldn't complain. However using Sanders and AOC in the same grouping dilute the nuance of their respective positions, and why some people support one but not the other. It also has little to do with WikiLeaks releasing Hillary's emails - that was a targeted stunt specifically aimed at tanking her election chances.

 

[Estebonrober]

Almost 1700 polling places have closed across the southeast and west since shelby v holder. These are the areas where we are also seeing the highest growth in population in that same time span, that population being largely minority as well. It doesn;t take a rocket scientist. Afterall we have already caught the GOP red handed.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/06/7302...rives-could-mean-legal-political-woes-for-gop

In North Carolina, after Republican successes in the 2010 election, Hofeller helped draw new maps that netted the party 10 of the state's 13 congressional seats, despite the popular vote in that state being nearly even.

Any one thing in isolation maybe. . . maybe, but put together and it is clear what the strategy is and is not pretty.

 

[Lexicus]

However using Sanders and AOC in the same grouping dilute the nuance of their respective positions,

Their only positions that matter for the purposes of my analysis are identical: rejection of Big Money and campaigns powered by organizing and small donations.

But that doesn't also mean that Hillary wasn't prevented from a real win

My view is that Hillary Clinton was the biggest single factor in Hillary Clinton losing the election. As in, I think she could have won if she had done a few things differently.

Incidentally, if you want to talk about Hillary prevented from a real win, the person to blame is James Comey, not Wikileaks.

 

[Gorbles]

Their only positions that matter for the purposes of my analysis are identical: rejection of Big Money and campaigns powered by organizing and small donations.

But then how does this relate to the hacking of the DNC? That it's okay because Hillary deserves to lose because she's no worse on certain aspects than Trump? Or less that she deserves to, but there's no difference in her losing?

I've seen this kind of argument before, but I don't want to presume.

EDIT

Didn't see your edit, nevermind. I understand where you're coming from, but I just disagree. I think a number of significant factors prevented a popular vote-aligned win, which is an unusual situation as far as I understand it in American politics regardless. A kind of death-by-a-thousand cuts situation.

Now, I'm not pretending it'd all be sunshine and cookies if she had won. She's an establishment-Democratic, I agree with you fully on their wide variety of problems. But I think it would be a preferable situation to what we have now, where nevermind their direct actions (for which there are many worth criticising), we also have specific foreign consequences of being emboldened by the Trump administration (PM me if you're interested, I'm not dragging the thread down with it, it's one of those things that'll absolutely trainwreck most threads).

 

[Lexicus]

But then how does this relate to the hacking of the DNC? That it's okay because Hillary deserves to lose because she's no worse on certain aspects than Trump? Or less that she deserves to, but there's no difference in her losing?

I've seen this kind of argument before, but I don't want to presume.

It has to do with the hacking insofar as the hacking exposed some of those attitudes. You could make a case that there was nothing "really" damaging in there and all the damage was just spin but I don't think that's really true. The hacking exposed stuff that legitimately looked bad. DNC should have cleaned house after the election was lost. Instead we have the same old crap. Contrast with how the Republicans cut away their dead wood of consultants and operatives after the 2012 loss.

But I think it would be a preferable situation to what we have now,

FYI, I spent four weeks knocking doors for Hillary during the campaign (albeit as part of my union job, but that activity reflected my feelings on the election). I did not want Trump to win, nor was I indifferent to the outcome. I did however find it a bit difficult to sincerely sell Hillary to strangers at their doors. I absolutely dread having to do the same thing with Biden, you have no idea.

Didn't see your edit, nevermind. I understand where you're coming from, but I just disagree. I think a number of significant factors prevented a popular vote-aligned win, which is an unusual situation as far as I understand it in American politics regardless. A kind of death-by-a-thousand cuts situation.

You disagree that Hillary is to blame for Hillary's loss? So much for "the buck stops here." IMO it is her fault that things were close enough in the first place to allow Comey and Wikileaks to tip the scale.

As for the effect of Comey's late-October announcement that the email investigation was back on, I give you Nate Silver:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

 

[Lexicus]

Anyway to link things back to the topic of this thread: "Hillary did nothing wrong and the election was stolen from her by wikileaks/Russia/Comey" would be an absolutely disastrous view for Democrats to take away from the 2016 election. For one thing even if it is perfectly accurate it is all pretty much beyond our control. The way we campaign, the candidate we nominate, those things we can control. And to say we cannot do better than we did in 2016 is just garbage.

I'm creating space to allow the Republican resistance

"Republican resistance" isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Republicans have a very clear choice at this time: stop being Republicans or continue to contribute to the destruction of America.