Recent Posts

Show posts from buddies only

It's like this election found a time machine and went back to a Georgia of 20+ years ago

The 1990s called, they want their geographic coalitions back.

Voted uncommitted today in Kentucky. I’m curious to see if Biden will lose any counties to it. It certainly won’t be to the extent of 2012, but I won’t be surprised a few in coal country defect (obviously not because of Gaza, or anything similar).

Uncommitted has won Breathitt, Knott and Floyd so far.

I think it makes more sense to argue this election indicates abortion doesn't work well in the south as opposed to the Midwest. African Americans are unlikely to have voted for Pinson because of it, but it clearly failed to move them towards  Barrow. It also reinforces the evidence from 2022 that southern suburbanites aren't prochoice in the same way their Midwestern counterparts were.

In that sense, what didn't happen tells us a lot. Because if Barrow were winning by 10% a lot of people here would be rightfully drawing inferences.

Completely disagree, Barrow made abortion an issue but we really don't know how many people even heard of his stance on the issue. He was still out spent by the Republican and barely spent over $1M. It's not like it was universally known that he was running on abortion.

But that is my point.  If Barrow were winning by 10% it would tell us something about the potency of Dobbs in Georgia because every single other factor was against him.

We can't isolate any single factor for why he lost, because there were plenty of reasons for him to lose.

But there was really only one possible reason he could have won, which is why him not winning tells us Dobbs is not some silver bullet in Georgia which can trump other factors on its own.

Wheras I think there is an argument that it has largely made it impossible for a Republican to win a Supreme Court race in Wisconsin and very hard in Pennsylvania.

If the two candidates spent the same amount of money in GA as they did in Wisconsin (and there was on incumbent label), I think things would've been decently diffferent here.

Nothing. Voters are likely picking randomly.

Not quite randomly.  Uncontroversial incumbents almost always do well.  Pinson was tagged as the incumbent on the ballot, and I'd bet that was the deciding factor for a lot of voters -- not that they know who he is.  Barrow is doing well in areas he used to represent, where he has high name recognition and was a popular congressman for years.  This doesn't 100% explain the weird-looking split in this election, but it explains a lot of it.

I’m confused by Barrow doing so well in mostly White places he didn’t represent. It’s clear that Black voters are choosing Pinson in large part due to incumbency, but then Pinson is doing a lot worse in NW Georgia than Trump. Pinson only at 63% in Cherokee County stands out, where it almost seems like Pinson is suffering due to incumbency. If no one knows anything, then I guess it makes sense that it would tend to a 60-40 type split.

https://twitter.com/brent_peabody/status/1793071648373080522

I think a lot of it was crossover voting and can’t all be attributed to turnout.

Honestly, the fact that Barrow is even getting 45% (and likely higher) of the vote based off of just $1M running against an incumbent with no party affiliation actually tells me that he had a pretty strong case here.

I think it makes more sense to argue this election indicates abortion doesn't work well in the south as opposed to the Midwest. African Americans are unlikely to have voted for Pinson because of it, but it clearly failed to move them towards  Barrow. It also reinforces the evidence from 2022 that southern suburbanites aren't prochoice in the same way their Midwestern counterparts were.

In that sense, what didn't happen tells us a lot. Because if Barrow were winning by 10% a lot of people here would be rightfully drawing inferences.

Completely disagree, Barrow made abortion an issue but we really don't know how many people even heard of his stance on the issue. He was still out spent by the Republican and barely spent over $1M. It's not like it was universally known that he was running on abortion.

But that is my point.  If Barrow were winning by 10% it would tell us something about the potency of Dobbs in Georgia because every single other factor was against him.

We can't isolate any single factor for why he lost, because there were plenty of reasons for him to lose.

But there was really only one possible reason he could have won, which is why him not winning tells us Dobbs is not some silver bullet in Georgia which can trump other factors on its own.

Wheras I think there is an argument that it has largely made it impossible for a Republican to win a Supreme Court race in Wisconsin and very hard in Pennsylvania.

I saw a reddit thread where someone who was born in 2005 had just found out that same sex marriage wasn't legalized nationwide until 2015 and was shocked. This will be the first election they're eligible to vote in.

I'm surprised that anyone above the age of twelve doesn't know what, or who, Obergefell is. (I'll make an allowance for Generation Skibidi.)

https://twitter.com/brent_peabody/status/1793071648373080522

Yeah we've gotten Biden.

And what have we seen

Barely anything that Trump would've done differently.

Trump threatened and withdrew from several organisations like Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran deal etc. He also threatened leaving NATO, UN and all kinds of international cooperations

And now we have Biden as president and he also openly says that he'll ignore and condemn the International Criminal Court.

The truth is that both aren't really that different, it's just their messaging, branding and way of campaigning.

Saying over & over this is the most important election or "he is a nazi!!!", is just gonna add up to the fatigue. If this wasn't the case, Biden would be crushing Trump.

This is a non-issue, it's not going to sway voters. The ones who would sway their vote over it already aren't voting for Trump... they would have left at the latest after 6 january...

It's a stupid low effort add where someone took some random 20th century newspapers in WW1 and WW2 style theme probably and just pasted some headlines, like "Trump wins", "everyones happy that Trump won", peace through strengths, "america prevails".

I mean...

This is not how you win an election or are going to convince people to vote for Biden.

You aren't even convincing them to vote for Biden. You are convincing them to not vote for Trump, which well... a lot of people indeed won't do. Staying home, voting RFK jr. , Cornel West & Jill Stein instead.

This is the same mistake Clinton made in 2016. There is no focus on the strengths of who the people should vote for. Perhaps that's deliberately so because... there are no reasons or strengths? I don't know, but... that's what is remarkable about the Biden campaign.

8 years of smearing Trump, at a certain point people are fed up with it and have a certain fatigue. It's better to focus criticizing instead of all day the same thing over & over again on repeat...