Interviews why are Democrats held to a higher standard?

[BoomerD]

I don't think this is correct. Trump's base is insufficient for him to win as shown in 2020. He HAS to appeal to voters outside of his base or he loses yet again.

Remember, he doesn’t have to win the majority of votes…just the electoral college…nd come the election, be prepared for some serious hijinks by the Republicans.

 

[fskimospy]

Remember, he doesn’t have to win the majority of votes…just the electoral college…nd come the election, be prepared for some serious hijinks by the Republicans.

Correct, but his base is too small to win the electoral college either. People forget that in 2016 he had significant crossover support. He turned out his base in 2020 but lost crossover support, which made him lose the election. The entire idea that persuasion is useless because Trump voters won't change their mind is simply not true and we shouldn't get rid of a tactic that works!

Regardless, my point is that Trump has to appeal to people outside of his base. He he doesn't he will lose again.

 

[BoomerD]

Correct, but his base is too small to win the electoral college either. People forget that in 2016 he had significant crossover support. He turned out his base in 2020 but lost crossover support, which made him lose the election. The entire idea that persuasion is useless because Trump voters won't change their mind is simply not true and we shouldn't get rid of a tactic that works!

Regardless, my point is that Trump has to appeal to people outside of his base. He he doesn't he will lose again.

You’re right…MAGATS aren’t enough to win by themselves…but there are still enough “better russian than democrat” republicans who aren’t totally in the MAGA camp that could go either way. Look at all the relatively mainstream Republican politicians who have come out for Kamala…THAT’s the kind of crossover Kamala needs.

 

[Indus]

You’re right…MAGATS aren’t enough to win by themselves…but there are still enough “better russian than democrat” republicans who aren’t totally in the MAGA camp that could go either way. Look at all the relatively mainstream Republican politicians who have come out for Kamala…THAT’s the kind of crossover Kamala needs.

You guys need to wake up to the fact..

TRUMP IS MORE POPULAR THAN IN 16 AND 20!

He can win with his base alone because the Gaza voters aren't showing up. And she's a woman and she's black. And the migrant crime is outta control.

And he's talking to under 30 voters on podcasts now.

That's more than enough to make Trump win.

 

[fskimospy]

You guys need to wake up to the fact..

TRUMP IS MORE POPULAR THAN IN 16 AND 20!

He can win with his base alone because the Gaza voters aren't showing up. And she's a woman and she's black. And the migrant crime is outta control.

That's more than enough to make Trump win.

The extreme right wing bubble you live in is showing again.

 

[Indus]

The extreme right wing bubble you live in is showing again.

Even the Majority Report is talking about it..

You can listen for yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

Even the Majority Report is talking about it..

You can listen for yourself.

No thanks on YouTube videos.

This is a variation on ‘Trump got more votes in 2020 than in 2016!’, ignoring the fact that his tactics in driving that turnout were a major reason for his defeat.

 

[nickqt]

No thanks on YouTube videos.

This is a variation on ‘Trump got more votes in 2020 than in 2016!’, ignoring the fact that his tactics in driving that turnout were a major reason for his defeat.

<42,000 votes in 3 states and it would have went to the House 269-269, where Trump would have won in 2020. AZ, GA, WI.

Biden didn't win decisively, he won because of COVID and a few thousand votes in a few swing states.

The only thing that matters is turnout, and having the votes that are cast actually tallied.

 

[fskimospy]

<42,000 votes in 3 states and it would have went to the House 269-269, where Trump would have won in 2020. AZ, GA, WI.

And look at where that turnout focus got Trump, from winning all three states in 2016 to losing all three in 2020. Look at GA and AZ - they both saw a 4-5 point swing against Trump, which in a swing state is huge.

How that's anything other than a disastrous strategy is beyond me.

Biden didn't win decisively, he won because of COVID and a few thousand votes in a few swing states.

As far as COVID causing Trump's loss that seems unlikely as leadership in plenty of other countries were re-elected after COVID. In fact if anything there was a net approval improvement during 2020. There's a decent argument COVID helped Trump, at least as a concept.

What did NOT help Trump was his widely panned response to COVID, but a big part of that was because he was, you guessed it, appealing to his base! For example mask mandates were very popular in the closest swing states but Trump refused to endorse them because his base hated the idea. Base turnout up... election lost.

The only thing that matters is turnout, and having the votes that are cast actually tallied.

Absolutely not! This is exactly the sort of strategy that made Trump lose and that we have to discard at all costs.

If memory serves Trump -> Biden voters accounted for more than 100% of Biden's margin of victory in all of those states.

As I've said before turnout over everything is a path to guaranteed defeat in any close race because after obvious things like an improved ground game, contacting likely voters on your side, etc. things you do on a campaign level to increase turnout often increase turnout for your opponent as well. This is what Trump never understood and why I bet he was genuinely baffled that he got so many more votes than the last time yet lost.

He just didn't understand the goal of an election. It's not how many votes you get, it's if you get the MOST votes.

 

[nickqt]

And look at where that turnout focus got Trump, from winning all three states in 2016 to losing all three in 2020. Look at GA and AZ - they both saw a 4-5 point swing against Trump, which in a swing state is huge.

How that's anything other than a disastrous strategy is beyond me.

As far as COVID causing Trump's loss that seems unlikely as leadership in plenty of other countries were re-elected after COVID. In fact if anything there was a net approval improvement during 2020. There's a decent argument COVID helped Trump, at least as a concept.

What did NOT help Trump was his widely panned response to COVID, but a big part of that was because he was, you guessed it, appealing to his base! For example mask mandates were very popular in the closest swing states but Trump refused to endorse them because his base hated the idea. Base turnout up... election lost.

Absolutely not! This is exactly the sort of strategy that made Trump lose and that we have to discard at all costs.

If memory serves Trump -> Biden voters accounted for more than 100% of Biden's margin of victory in all of those states.

As I've said before turnout over everything is a path to guaranteed defeat in any close race because after obvious things like an improved ground game, contacting likely voters on your side, etc. things you do on a campaign level to increase turnout often increase turnout for your opponent as well. This is what Trump never understood and why I bet he was genuinely baffled that he got so many more votes than the last time yet lost.

He just didn't understand the goal of an election. It's not how many votes you get, it's if you get the MOST votes.

I bring up the <42,000 thing because I like to remind everyone that the total EC votes received doesn't tell the whole story, because they come in blocks, not individually. Winning with 300 EC votes by <42,000 spread out over 3 states wasn't the huge win some people thought it was.

I was verbally eye-rolled by many people on these forums for estimating that Trump would get approximately 80M+ votes this time around. I think he will and that Harris will get to approximately 90M, but if they aren't spread out right, you can end up with a 2000 or 2016 type result where the popular vote winner =! EC vote winner.

The only thing that matters is turnout, and honestly, in swing states. I'd rather lose the popular vote and win the electoral college vote, if for no other reason than maybe that would create pressure from Republicans to drop the awful EC. It's really a piece of shit no matter how anyone tries to 'republic-not-a-democracy-splain it.

 

[hal2kilo]

Once again Lawrence O'Donnel nails the double standard. Yea, looking at you NYT.

MSN

www.msn.com

Geez, so you see MSN and that's it. The bottom line is that NYT campaign reporters, and editors think tariffs work the way Trump describes it. Foreign countries are not legally obligated to pay a fucking cent to the US ever. It'a all paid by you and me. Not the Trump wording that the NYT article uses.

 

[fskimospy]

I bring up the <42,000 thing because I like to remind everyone that the total EC votes received doesn't tell the whole story, because they come in blocks, not individually. Winning with 300 EC votes by <42,000 spread out over 3 states wasn't the huge win some people thought it was.

I was verbally eye-rolled by many people on these forums for estimating that Trump would get approximately 80M+ votes this time around. I think he will and that Harris will get to approximately 90M, but if they aren't spread out right, you can end up with a 2000 or 2016 type result where the popular vote winner =! EC vote winner.

The only thing that matters is turnout, and honestly, in swing states. I'd rather lose the popular vote and win the electoral college vote, if for no other reason than maybe that would create pressure from Republicans to drop the awful EC. It's really a piece of shit no matter how anyone tries to 'republic-not-a-democracy-splain it.

Again, focusing on turnout is not effective past contacting your voters, driving people to the polls, etc., as it activates the opposing base. If you look at the campaigns in 2020 Trump focused almost entirely on mobilizing his base while Biden focused on outreach. What happened? Voters who had not voted in 2016 or 2018 actually favored Biden slightly while Trump -> Biden voters significantly outnumbered Clinton -> Trump voters.

So basically Trump's turnout focus failed. His efforts to goose turnout turned off persuadable voters and drove up participation by opposition voters.

 

[fskimospy]

Geez, so you see MSN and that's it. The bottom line is that NYT campaign reporters, and editors think tariffs work the way Trump describes it. Foreign countries are not legally obligated to pay a fucking cent to the US ever. It'a all paid by you and me. Not the Trump wording that the NYT article uses.

I would be surprised if they are stupid enough to think tariffs are paid by other countries, they do this all the time and about all subjects.

I agree with your frustration about the absolute trash quality of reporting though and about something as obvious as this. The purpose of tariffs is to make domestic industry more competitive by making foreign products more expensive than US products. They literally only work if consumers pay more.

 

[Indus]

I would be surprised if they are stupid enough to think tariffs are paid by other countries, they do this all the time and about all subjects.

I agree with your frustration about the absolute trash quality of reporting though and about something as obvious as this. The purpose of tariffs is to make domestic industry more competitive by making foreign products more expensive than US products. They literally only work if consumers pay more.

It's the new Mexico will pay for the wall!

And I think it will work.

 

[fskimospy]

It's the new Mexico will pay for the wall!

And I think it will work.

I doubt it - they will cause massive inflation and will require massive cuts in social security and Medicare. If you designed a policy in a lab that's easy to campaign against I don't know how you could do better than the Trump tariffs.

It's just a really dumb electoral policy and it's probably only being done because Trump is too stupid to know how they work.

 

[nickqt]

Again, focusing on turnout is not effective past contacting your voters, driving people to the polls, etc., as it activates the opposing base. If you look at the campaigns in 2020 Trump focused almost entirely on mobilizing his base while Biden focused on outreach. What happened? Voters who had not voted in 2016 or 2018 actually favored Biden slightly while Trump -> Biden voters significantly outnumbered Clinton -> Trump voters.

So basically Trump's turnout focus failed. His efforts to goose turnout turned off persuadable voters and drove up participation by opposition voters.

Trump's "failure" was as much fluke as it was a tactical error.

It was less than 42,000 votes over 3 states that gave Biden a win. That's tenths of a percent in each state. COVID almost assuredly changed that many votes in the three states that Biden won that Trump had won previously. Without COVID, there's no reason to believe Biden would have won in 2020. COVID was a shitshow on a world stage. Minus that, I don't see the election going the same way, regardless of voter reachout by Biden.

Also...

Republicans had MORE Senate votes in 2020 than Democrats, and lost 3 seats.
Republicans had LESS House votes in 2020 than Democrats, and picked up 13 seats.

This is important because all the arbitrary state borders determine who wins Federal Offices. The popular vote is a useless statistic.

You're looking backwards and saying Biden did X, Y and Z that was better than Trump.

I'm continuing to point out that 2020 was 50.xx-49.xx in terms of the votes that actually matter - a few thousand in 3 states, giving Biden the White House. Counting running up the score in blue states is pointless. And unless we're flipping states like Florida, Ohio, or Texas, it's coming down to the swing states we can all probably list off without looking them up. AZ, NV, MI, WI, GA, NC, PA.

Harris will increase total voters from Biden's in 2020. I don't think that's even a question.

But if the new Democratic voters aren't in the right states, it literally doesn't matter. 200,000,000 Californians can't elect the President. 100,000,000 Texans can't elect the President.

It's 10,000-20,000 in the swing states who are literally stupid enough to go either way (yes, only literally stupid people haven't known who they'd vote for in 2024 since November 4th 2020) that determine who wins. Hilariously tragic, but still the reality on the ground.

So outreach is great, but if all of these new voter registrations don't result in new votes in favor of Harris, Trump can win. Anyone who knows who is going to win in 2024 is either a liar or delusional, or both. Ain't one single vote been cast yet.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I bring up the <42,000 thing because I like to remind everyone that the total EC votes received doesn't tell the whole story, because they come in blocks, not individually. Winning with 300 EC votes by <42,000 spread out over 3 states wasn't the huge win some people thought it was.

I was verbally eye-rolled by many people on these forums for estimating that Trump would get approximately 80M+ votes this time around. I think he will and that Harris will get to approximately 90M, but if they aren't spread out right, you can end up with a 2000 or 2016 type result where the popular vote winner =! EC vote winner.

The only thing that matters is turnout, and honestly, in swing states. I'd rather lose the popular vote and win the electoral college vote, if for no other reason than maybe that would create pressure from Republicans to drop the awful EC. It's really a piece of shit no matter how anyone tries to 'republic-not-a-democracy-splain it.

Counterpoint: incumbents aren't supposed to lose elections, 42k votes is also not telling the whole story. Historically speaking, 2020 was a hell of a loss for Republicans.

 

[MrSquished]

Again, focusing on turnout is not effective past contacting your voters, driving people to the polls, etc., as it activates the opposing base. If you look at the campaigns in 2020 Trump focused almost entirely on mobilizing his base while Biden focused on outreach. What happened? Voters who had not voted in 2016 or 2018 actually favored Biden slightly while Trump -> Biden voters significantly outnumbered Clinton -> Trump voters.

So basically Trump's turnout focus failed. His efforts to goose turnout turned off persuadable voters and drove up participation by opposition voters.

Except this is not the same election. Harris is motivating a ton of the core Dem base - women, African Americans, and has a shot to get the highest number of younger voters out in a while AND she is appealing to the center and moderates at the same time. Turnout among core Dem demographics is going to be critical to win. He is correct.

 

[MrSquished]

Counterpoint: incumbents aren't supposed to lose elections, 42k votes is also not telling the whole story. Historically speaking, 2020 was a hell of a loss for Republicans.

Disagree, 42K votes is most of the story, not all of it, but most. That's what it takes to ACTUALLY WIN THE ELECTION - everything else can be historic but it's all feel good stuff compared to the actual 42k votes that got us there. And that was it, it was close as fuck.

 

[iRONic]

@gotnoeggs having mad competition for the diaper stash!1!

 

[Fenixgoon]

Disagree, 42K votes is most of the story, not all of it, but most. That's what it takes to ACTUALLY WIN THE ELECTION - everything else can be historic but it's all feel good stuff compared to the actual 42k votes that got us there. And that was it, it was close as fuck.

Agreed. In theory, a candidate can win the EC with only 20-30% of the popular vote (that's how messed up it is).
So for all the historics that any national vote might make (let's say, a 75-25 popular vote blowout), the margin on what actually made the difference between winning and losing the electoral college is what's critical.

Hopefully Harris gets an electoral blowout, and a popular vote one as well

 

[nickqt]

Counterpoint: incumbents aren't supposed to lose elections, 42k votes is also not telling the whole story. Historically speaking, 2020 was a hell of a loss for Republicans.

Agreed. In theory, a candidate can win the EC with only 20-30% of the popular vote (that's how messed up it is).
So for all the historics that any national vote might make (let's say, a 75-25 popular vote blowout), the margin on what actually made the difference between winning and losing the electoral college is what's critical.

Hopefully Harris gets an electoral blowout, and a popular vote one as well

Incumbents aren't supposed to lose an election, that's correct. And without COVID, I believe that Trump would have won re-election. COVID made 2020 extremely historical. Between dead voters and people being scared of Trump's blatant mismanagement of COVID, I can see 22,000 voters across 3 states voting for "someone else please".

Again, never mind the total EC count, or the total popular vote count. Change the votes of 21,461 votes across AZ, GA and WI, and the 2020 election goes to the House where Trump is almost assuredly elected.

155,507,476 total votes cast.
000,042,918 +Biden in AZ, GI, WI
000,021,461 votes that decided 3 states (you only need to change half the votes+1 to get an exact opposite result)

0.0138% change in total votes results in historic Donald Trump re-election. Biden+42,918 / 2 = 21,461

That is, a thirteen thousandths of a percent change in total votes and Trump is still in the White House today.

I'm supposed to derive comfort from that?

Breaking it down by just those 3 swing states to make it a little more relative...

AZ: 1,672,143 - 1,661,686 total=3,333,829; Biden+10,457; change=5229 votes=Trump win
GA: 2,473,633 - 2,461,854 total=4,935,487; Biden+11,779; change=5890 votes=Trump win
WI: 1,630,866 - 1,610,184 total=3,241,050; Biden+20,682; change=10,342 votes=Trump win

11,510,366 votes total in AZ GA WI
21,461 changed in AZ GA WI to give Trump win

0.186% change in total votes from AZ GA WI results in historic Donald Trump re-election.

That is, an eighteen hundredths of a percent change in total votes in 3 swing states and Trump is still in the White House today.

Is that comfortable?

The "historic" 2020 election was an absolute squeaker within the framework of the Electoral College/Constitution.

200,000,000 Californians cannot elect the President. 100,000,000 Texans cannot elect the President.

0.0136% - 0.186% of the population in a few swing states can change the election. That's a rainy day, an electric outage, a few cases of the flu, etc.

That's all turnout and votes actually tallied by the people counting the votes for county Board of Elections.

Polls are meaningless and 2020 wasn't a huge victory, it was a rounding error.

 

[HomerJS]

Democrats in most instances hold themselves to a higher standard...

Biden Was Photographed Wearing A 'Trump 2024' Hat. Here's Why.

The White House set the record straight on the image that had Donald Trump's supporters salivating.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Okay cnn, when can I expect a summary of all the incorrect things the former president has posted and all the media accounts of the former presidents election staff?
Will I see it tomorrow? Maybe next week?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/politics/fact-check-harris-campaign-social-media/index.html

I fully support misinformation being called out, I do not support holding Kamala to a higher truth standard than the former President.

 

[iRONic]

^^I haven’t supported any of their platforms in well over two years.

I can remember when John fucking Roberts was a well respected anchor there. JFC…