Another thing about the New York election is that it was won, not only by the more-committed voters who turn out for off-year elections, but by the really committed voters who came out in a snowstorm.
And the takeaway from that would be that voter registration and get-out-the-vote are going to be super important.
So, Bulwarkians saying "but what should we /do/?" -- there's your clue.
Another thing about the New York election is that it was won, not only by the more-committed voters who turn out for off-year elections, but by the really committed voters who came out in a snowstorm.
And the takeaway from that would be that voter registration and get-out-the-vote are going to be super important.
So, Bulwarkians saying "but what should we /do/?" -- there's your clue.
Which highlights the importance of early voting. Dems ran ahead in early votes for that NY election which allowed the get out the vote operation to narrow the focus of calls, texts and canvassing to the remaining voters. And also meant shorter lines at the polls on election day
In large populated areas early voting can speed the count, something that some people think is so important. In my state at least, the mailed in/dropped off ballots can be verified by signature, removed from the envelope and stacked up ready to run through the tabulators the second the polls close. In person voting...ballots stacked up and ready to count the second the polls close.
But they are NOT futile this year! (Or any year, really; since there would be no swing states if there were not reliable red and blue states.) THIS year, we need to pound MAGA into the sand! Everywhere! Everywhere! Everywhere!!!! Your life depends on it...literally!
And if your ship sank, would you stop swimming because you couldn't see a way to shore? (If so, read this https://carlhiaasen.com/books/skinny-dip/ ... after you finish The Great Gatsby.)
If your car went into a skid, would you throw up your hands and let it go over the cliff?
(Dude, don't you watch thrillers on TV?)
In an emergency, you work every angle you can. You put your energy into finding solutions, not analyzing why they won't work. If you have a better idea, by all means, put it to work. But there's a big difference between saying "that won't work and we need to do this instead" and saying "that won't work."
This whole "only swing states count now" notion, while compelling, seems grievously under-examined (not so much by you and me as by people higher up the food chain who can do something about it). Pundits should be writing about it. Activists should be making up action plans.
It's not the only under-examined idea we're allowing to rule us (the validity of polls, and meaningful ways to assess Joe Biden's ability instead of letting some GOP lawyer send us into a tailspin come to mind). We say this is an emergency. We should act like it.
So this dude has taken his scolding. Will I be receiving more incoming if I point out that putting my energy into "solutions" that analysis proves won't work is wasted energy?
Bad form on my part to grouse about the electoral college when you're rallying the troops.
How does one decide a solution that didn't work was a waste of energy? Is it because the desired outcome didn't happen? What if the solution didn't lead to the desired outcome such as winning the presidency but did something to increase voter turnout or made the conversations about the politics more civil or bring more people out to run for state and local office?
I think putting some effort into down ballot races in Trump states can make a difference. I will certainly put effort into getting Tester reelected in Montana and push the abortion issue. Somehow Beshear keeps getting elected in Kentucky so there is hope down ballot even in a solid Trump state.
Not at all, dude! You made a valid point and it wasn't a scolding. More of a grouse that, as I said, people higher up the food chain are not addressing this. And I have no desire to rally the troops; I have enough trouble rallying myself.
I would push back on one thing: analysis hasn't /proven/ anything ("Dewey Defeats Truman!"), though it's certainly discouraging. So are the other issues I mentioned. All of them could use better analysis and planning. We are not the first people in the history of the planet (or the US!) to face discouraging odds.
So if you feel that voter registration and get-out-the-vote are wasted energy, what are the other solutions that you're going to put your energy into instead?
I would locate our largest problem, not in facing discouraging odds, but in the stakes. The meaning of being on the losing side of an Obama-Romney race is entirely different than losing a Biden-Trump race. When we come down to specificities, I would note that the effectiveness of any one individual in their actions is highly dependent on that individual's circumstances. Does one live in George Santos's district or Wyoming or San Francisco. Does a person have the ability to contribute time or money. Or both. Does one have special skills that can be of use in a campaign.
Of course, in a district like the Santos district, an army of volunteers can make all the difference. These people are true patriots. And Party leadership needs to make sure that financial resources are not lacking in these places.
As for me and my particular circumstances and what it means for my own efforts: I live in Nebraska in a congressional district that is strongly Republican, but not at Wyoming levels. I happen to be part owner of a business where profitability depends heavily on my efforts. My ability to make financial contributions depends on that profitability. So, if I am true to the story I tell myself, my efforts might best be directed at maintaining the ability to write checks. My recent history: In the 2020 congressional races, I contributed to the Democratic candidates in my district and in the much more competitive race in the district that is largely the city of Omaha. The candidate in my district recorded a series of one-on-one conversations with supporters, and I did one of these as a Republican supporter. (Technically a former Republican by then.) I also tried the phone bank thing for her, but was really bad at it. I always understood the candidacy was a long shot, but I thought her messaging was positioning the Party in a place that could be a winner eventually. Long game . . . . My contributions in the Omaha district also went for naught as this race was badly fumbled by a too-progressive-for-the-district campaign. Won't bore you further, but we all find our own paths.
Lewis, that seems like a strange conclusion here--NY is a non-swing state, and there was nothing remotely futile about making sure a Dem was elected to the House.
I share your frustration, having lived in a red state where my vote mattered not at all on any level except the local, but even that was important. No, Missouri, where I lived, is not going to vote for Biden, and probably is going to send the execrable Josh Hawley back to the Senate in a landslide, but, even with all that the GOP supermajority has done to limit local governments, it was still much better to live in a city run by liberals than in the vast neo-Confederate portions of the state.
This is why Democrats need to be spending more time on Congressional and Senate and local races in the non-swing states than the Presidential race. Every single vote in the House matters!
Not more than on Prez; just as much as, which means more time overall this year! We know now exactly what it means to send morons or ideologues or the demonic possessed, to Congress.
Another thing about the New York election is that it was won, not only by the more-committed voters who turn out for off-year elections, but by the really committed voters who came out in a snowstorm.
And the takeaway from that would be that voter registration and get-out-the-vote are going to be super important.
So, Bulwarkians saying "but what should we /do/?" -- there's your clue.
Which highlights the importance of early voting. Dems ran ahead in early votes for that NY election which allowed the get out the vote operation to narrow the focus of calls, texts and canvassing to the remaining voters. And also meant shorter lines at the polls on election day
In large populated areas early voting can speed the count, something that some people think is so important. In my state at least, the mailed in/dropped off ballots can be verified by signature, removed from the envelope and stacked up ready to run through the tabulators the second the polls close. In person voting...ballots stacked up and ready to count the second the polls close.
Another reason the electoral college sucks: If one lives in, like most Americans, a non-swing state, these efforts seem futile.
But they are NOT futile this year! (Or any year, really; since there would be no swing states if there were not reliable red and blue states.) THIS year, we need to pound MAGA into the sand! Everywhere! Everywhere! Everywhere!!!! Your life depends on it...literally!
And if your ship sank, would you stop swimming because you couldn't see a way to shore? (If so, read this https://carlhiaasen.com/books/skinny-dip/ ... after you finish The Great Gatsby.)
If your car went into a skid, would you throw up your hands and let it go over the cliff?
(Dude, don't you watch thrillers on TV?)
In an emergency, you work every angle you can. You put your energy into finding solutions, not analyzing why they won't work. If you have a better idea, by all means, put it to work. But there's a big difference between saying "that won't work and we need to do this instead" and saying "that won't work."
This whole "only swing states count now" notion, while compelling, seems grievously under-examined (not so much by you and me as by people higher up the food chain who can do something about it). Pundits should be writing about it. Activists should be making up action plans.
It's not the only under-examined idea we're allowing to rule us (the validity of polls, and meaningful ways to assess Joe Biden's ability instead of letting some GOP lawyer send us into a tailspin come to mind). We say this is an emergency. We should act like it.
Carl Hiassen is one of the funniest writers on the planet.
So this dude has taken his scolding. Will I be receiving more incoming if I point out that putting my energy into "solutions" that analysis proves won't work is wasted energy?
Bad form on my part to grouse about the electoral college when you're rallying the troops.
How does one decide a solution that didn't work was a waste of energy? Is it because the desired outcome didn't happen? What if the solution didn't lead to the desired outcome such as winning the presidency but did something to increase voter turnout or made the conversations about the politics more civil or bring more people out to run for state and local office?
I think putting some effort into down ballot races in Trump states can make a difference. I will certainly put effort into getting Tester reelected in Montana and push the abortion issue. Somehow Beshear keeps getting elected in Kentucky so there is hope down ballot even in a solid Trump state.
Yes, in no way can we not work on the SENATE as well as the WH, and even on keeping the House.
Not at all, dude! You made a valid point and it wasn't a scolding. More of a grouse that, as I said, people higher up the food chain are not addressing this. And I have no desire to rally the troops; I have enough trouble rallying myself.
I would push back on one thing: analysis hasn't /proven/ anything ("Dewey Defeats Truman!"), though it's certainly discouraging. So are the other issues I mentioned. All of them could use better analysis and planning. We are not the first people in the history of the planet (or the US!) to face discouraging odds.
So if you feel that voter registration and get-out-the-vote are wasted energy, what are the other solutions that you're going to put your energy into instead?
I would locate our largest problem, not in facing discouraging odds, but in the stakes. The meaning of being on the losing side of an Obama-Romney race is entirely different than losing a Biden-Trump race. When we come down to specificities, I would note that the effectiveness of any one individual in their actions is highly dependent on that individual's circumstances. Does one live in George Santos's district or Wyoming or San Francisco. Does a person have the ability to contribute time or money. Or both. Does one have special skills that can be of use in a campaign.
Of course, in a district like the Santos district, an army of volunteers can make all the difference. These people are true patriots. And Party leadership needs to make sure that financial resources are not lacking in these places.
As for me and my particular circumstances and what it means for my own efforts: I live in Nebraska in a congressional district that is strongly Republican, but not at Wyoming levels. I happen to be part owner of a business where profitability depends heavily on my efforts. My ability to make financial contributions depends on that profitability. So, if I am true to the story I tell myself, my efforts might best be directed at maintaining the ability to write checks. My recent history: In the 2020 congressional races, I contributed to the Democratic candidates in my district and in the much more competitive race in the district that is largely the city of Omaha. The candidate in my district recorded a series of one-on-one conversations with supporters, and I did one of these as a Republican supporter. (Technically a former Republican by then.) I also tried the phone bank thing for her, but was really bad at it. I always understood the candidacy was a long shot, but I thought her messaging was positioning the Party in a place that could be a winner eventually. Long game . . . . My contributions in the Omaha district also went for naught as this race was badly fumbled by a too-progressive-for-the-district campaign. Won't bore you further, but we all find our own paths.
Lewis, that seems like a strange conclusion here--NY is a non-swing state, and there was nothing remotely futile about making sure a Dem was elected to the House.
I share your frustration, having lived in a red state where my vote mattered not at all on any level except the local, but even that was important. No, Missouri, where I lived, is not going to vote for Biden, and probably is going to send the execrable Josh Hawley back to the Senate in a landslide, but, even with all that the GOP supermajority has done to limit local governments, it was still much better to live in a city run by liberals than in the vast neo-Confederate portions of the state.
My sympathies that your Senator is Hawley.My rep. is Tom "tea party" Emmer.Hence my empathy.
Thank you. That's WAS Hawley. I now share Klobuchar and Smith with you.
Sorry I forgot.I gotten to know so many Minnesotans and Wisconsinites from the Bulwark!
This is why Democrats need to be spending more time on Congressional and Senate and local races in the non-swing states than the Presidential race. Every single vote in the House matters!
Not more than on Prez; just as much as, which means more time overall this year! We know now exactly what it means to send morons or ideologues or the demonic possessed, to Congress.