Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[SaysWho?]

6 minutes ago, Jose said:

Was Biden a bad choice for Obama? Delaware certainly isn't a battleground state. Does anyone even know what state Dick Cheney was from? I sure as fuck don't

 

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Fair enough.  But Obama was a good candidate who brought people to the polls.  Clinton, and now Biden, don't share the same aura as Obama did. 

 

I thought Biden was a way to help unite the party (I remember Geraldine Ferraro, someone you may remember was infamously tense with the Obamas, being very excited about it as a Hillary supporter), bring someone who had some foreign policy chops, and appeal to working class folk considering his Pennsylvania roots.

 

I don't know if it's ever been shown that he moved the needle at all. Obama was doing well in places like Wisconsin and Iowa and Minnesota before Biden came into the picture.

[thewhyteboar]

 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

 

I thought Biden was a way to help unite the party (I remember Geraldine Ferraro, someone you may remember was infamously tense with the Obamas, being very excited about it as a Hillary supporter), bring someone who had some foreign policy chops, and appeal to working class folk considering his Pennsylvania roots.

 

I don't know if it's ever been shown that he moved the needle at all. Obama was doing well in places like Wisconsin and Iowa and Minnesota before Biden came into the picture.

The Biden pick was definitely a way to reassure working class whites that it wouldn't just be "Elites" running things. That's what the Biden pick was for Obama. Tim Kaine's pick followed similar thinking for Hillary.

[SaysWho?]

Having read Shattered, Tim Kaine was picked because Hillary disliked all her options but got to know Tim through the interview process. He was the only one she was comfortable with having as VP.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

31 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I disagree.  Not only does it matter where they are from, it matters who they are.  

 

Palin was a horrible choice for McCain.  Kaine was a horrible choice for Clinton.  Both of those picks did nothing to expand the coalition or help in battleground states.  

Who matters a whole hell of a lot more than where given that we have an urban/rural divide that is fairly consistent across state lines and not a state by state divide.

[SaysWho?]

tbh, considering Clinton's Arkansas roots, spending much of her adulthood in the state, then campaigning heavily in Upstate New York in her first Senate run and her ability to attract rural voters in 2008, it's endlessly fascinating how she couldn't do it again in 2016.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

7 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

tbh, considering Clinton's Arkansas roots, spending much of her adulthood in the state, then campaigning heavily in Upstate New York in her first Senate run and her ability to attract rural voters in 2008, it's endlessly fascinating how she couldn't do it again in 2016.

No democrat really can. Those that have recently have limited shelf lives (Manchin, Sherrod Brown, etc). 

[SaysWho?]

2 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

No democrat really can. Those that have recently have limited shelf lives (Manchin, Sherrod Brown, etc). 

 

They've been around for a while, so I wouldn't say they're limited at all.

 

Nationally, it's been much harder. Bill Clinton was the last Democrat who could attract so many rural areas despite never winning a majority of the vote. This was 1996's map:

 

 

Yet Obama also won by a big margin, got more than half the vote, and the county map looked like this:

 

 

Like, Obama won the same percentage of votes in Missouri as Bill, but he won a half dozen counties. Still, this was a pretty strong map overall for Dems, and many rural areas still voted less Republican than in 2004.

 

Your point for urban-rural is even more striking when you see the amount of dark red and dark blue on the map.

 

Statewide, Dems can do really well, but it has gradually shown more instances of that divide. A few comparisons between 2006 and 2018 (same states running in the Senate) and their margin of victory.

 

2006 (58-38):

 

2018 (60-36)

 

2006 (57-41):

 

 

2018 (52-46):

 

 

 

2006 (67-31):

 

 

2018 (67-33):

 

 

 

Those are better comparisons since the percentages aren't radically different. 

 

But even in Virginia, the margins were way different but the county map didn't change radically.

 

2006 (49.6-49.2):

 

 

 

 

2018 (57-41):

 

 

 

Dems lost some counties, particularly in the west that has gone more Republican. At the same time, they're expanding in the east, so despite what some people say, it's not just Northern Virginia. Tons of votes are there, but they've been reaching out to many areas past Appalachia. 

[PaladinSolo]

Are those Gerrymandered counties in Virgina's map, or districts? lol.

[SaysWho?]

18 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Are those Gerrymandered counties in Virgina's map, or districts? lol.

 

County map, not districts.

[PaladinSolo]

Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

County map, not districts.

So they have round counties inside counties wtf is this shit.

[mclumber1]

Just now, PaladinSolo said:

So they have round counties inside counties wtf is this shit.

 

Major cities in Virginia are completely separate from counties, unlike the rest of the the US. 

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, PaladinSolo said:

So they have round counties inside counties wtf is this shit.

 

Independent cities.

 

EDIT: What mclumber said

[Kal-El814]

Conservatives seem to have skeptical boners for Tulsi, so Biden is obviously picking her.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

24 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

They've been around for a while, so I wouldn't say they're limited at all.

 

Nationally, it's been much harder. Bill Clinton was the last Democrat who could attract so many rural areas despite never winning a majority of the vote. This was 1996's map:

 

 

Yet Obama also won by a big margin, got more than half the vote, and the county map looked like this:

 

 

Like, Obama won the same percentage of votes in Missouri as Bill, but he won a half dozen counties. Still, this was a pretty strong map overall for Dems, and many rural areas still voted less Republican than in 2004.

 

Your point for urban-rural is even more striking when you see the amount of dark red and dark blue on the map; the votes just came from different places, and many rural areas still voted less Republican than in 2004.

 

Statewide, Dems can do really well, but it has gradually shown more instances of that divide. A few comparisons between 2006 and 2018 (same states running in the Senate) and their margin of victory.

 

2006 (58-38):

 

2018 (60-36)

 

2006 (57-41):

 

 

2018 (52-46):

 

 

 

2006 (67-31):

 

 

2018 (67-33):

 

 

 

Those are better comparisons since the percentages aren't radically different. 

 

But even in Virginia, the margins were way different but the county map didn't change radically.

 

2006 (49.6-49.2):

 

 

 

 

2018 (57-41):

 

 

 

Dems lost some counties, particularly in the west that has gone more Republican. At the same time, they're expanding in the east, so despite what some people say, it's not just Northern Virginia. Tons of votes are there, but they've been reaching out to many areas past Appalachia. 

The county map in VA is deceiving, and proves my point, and is highly instructional. Henrico and Chesterfield in suburban Richmond, NoVA, greater VABeach, and the independent cities got bluer, while Appalachia and other counties got way red. The remaining counties that are blue and not in the urban crescent in the east are where colleges and universities are (VT, UVA, Longwood/Hampton-Sidney) or have a significant African American population.

 

There's a political divergence along urban and rural lines, excepting where there are significant numbers of rural African Americans. Just look at Harrisonburg and it's surrounding county. The city, with James Madison University got bluer but the county surrounding got more red. They are wholly separate politically so votes in one do not share votes with the other. 

[Jason]

2 hours ago, Jose said:

Was Biden a bad choice for Obama? Delaware certainly isn't a battleground state. Does anyone even know what state Dick Cheney was from? I sure as fuck don't

 

And Gore didn't win Tennessee. 

[osxmatt]

I don't want to quote it and lengthen the page any further, but that was a great breakdown @SaysWho?.

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

And Gore didn't win Tennessee. 

 

If Al Gore would've been able to win Tennessee, he would have won the election. 

 

Shame

[SaysWho?]

59 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The county map in VA is deceiving, and proves my point, and is highly instructional. Henrico and Chesterfield in suburban Richmond, NoVA, greater VABeach, and the independent cities got bluer, while Appalachia and other counties got way red. The remaining counties that are blue and not in the urban crescent in the east are where colleges and universities are (VT, UVA, Longwood/Hampton-Sidney) or have a significant African American population.

 

There's a political divergence along urban and rural lines, excepting where there are significant numbers of rural African Americans. Just look at Harrisonburg and it's surrounding county. The city, with James Madison University got bluer but the county surrounding got more red. They are wholly separate politically so votes in one do not share votes with the other. 

 

Yes, they're not attracting many rural, white Americans, but that was part of my point, albeit not phrased strongly. In 2006, Webb won as a Democrat narrowly. In 2018, Kaine easily won. Yet he didn't sweep a ton more counties; he just got more and more of the vote in the east, while the rural west -- Appalachia -- became more strongly Republican.

 

The other part of my point was that it's more than northern Virginia; they actually do pretty well in many parts of the state for a variety of reasons. I just brought that up because I think that's been said here, and while a ton of the vote is from there, it's not like Illinois where sometimes the gubernatorial/Senate Democrat can just run up votes in Chicago and the Chicago suburbs and make it a close race by that alone.

 

40 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

If Al Gore would've been able to win Tennessee, he would have won the election. 

 

Shame

 

He had a better chance winning Florida since he only needed ~500 votes. He may have had roots there, but if he won in Tennessee, he would have been much more competitive in Kentucky, Arkansas and West Virginia as well and it wouldn't have been as close electorally.

 

Hell, he would have won Florida had he also won Tennessee since there are traces of Appalachia down here.

[Joe]

3 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Yes, they're not attracting many rural, white Americans, but that was part of my point, albeit not phrased strongly. In 2006, Webb won as a Democrat narrowly. In 2018, Kaine easily won. Yet he didn't sweep a ton more counties; he just got more and more of the vote in the east, while the rural west -- Appalachia -- became more strongly Republican.

 

The other part of my point was that it's more than northern Virginia; they actually do pretty well in many parts of the state for a variety of reasons. I just brought that up because I think that's been said here, and while a ton of the vote is from there, it's not like Illinois where sometimes the gubernatorial/Senate Democrat can just run up votes in Chicago and the Chicago suburbs and make it a close race by that alone.

 

 

He had a better chance winning Florida since he only needed ~500 votes. He may have had roots there, but if he won in Tennessee, he would have been much more competitive in Kentucky, Arkansas and West Virginia as well and it wouldn't have been as close electorally.

 

Hell, he would have won Florida had he also won Tennessee since there are traces of Appalachia down here.

 

 

I think Jason meant Gore as a VP candidate and mclumber was poking fun at the fact that it was unclear from the post. But I dunno, now I am confused.

[mclumber1]

Just now, Jose said:

 

 

I think Jason meant Gore as a VP candidate and mclumber was poking fun at the fact that it was unclear from the post. But I dunno, now I am confused.

 

I'm making fun of Cardboard Gore for losing his home state in 2000 - a state that was won by Bill Clinton just 4 years earlier. 

[SaysWho?]

18 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I'm making fun of Cardboard Gore for losing his home state in 2000 - a state that was won by Bill Clinton just 4 years earlier. 

 

Gore lost a lot of states Clinton won.  

 

That's what I'm saying, though: all those Appalachian states swung the other way. Clinton won it by just three points. Gore was VP for eight years; he had long since removed himself as this southern Senator with rural roots. Tennessee was just another Appalachian state/region that Gore didn't win on top of West Virginia, Kentucky, south Ohio and western Pennsylvania. And a little further west, Arkansas.

 

If he won Tennessee, he likely would have been doing way better in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and Florida and could have won all of them sans Kentucky. There are many cultural similarities between all the areas I mentioned, including Florida which has transplants from everywhere and a city called Bradenton that is called Bradentucky locally there because it seems more midwestern or Appalachian in culture.

 

New Hampshire is different, though. He could have won that in a vacuum and sealed the deal, and probably would have done slightly better in Maine (people forget that Bush was nearly the first to win one of its electoral votes before Trump did successfully).

 

tl;dr: Gore wasn't going to win Tennessee in a vacuum.

[Jason]

 

[Jason]

35 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

 

I think Jason meant Gore as a VP candidate and mclumber was poking fun at the fact that it was unclear from the post. But I dunno, now I am confused.

 

32 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I'm making fun of Cardboard Gore for losing his home state in 2000 - a state that was won by Bill Clinton just 4 years earlier. 

 

Yes, I meant that Gore didn't win Tennessee in 2000. If the guy at the top of the ticket isn't getting a home state advantage I think it's also overblown for the VP pick.

 

Also @mclumber1 maybe Gore should have let Clinton campaign for him.

[SaysWho?]

6 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

Yes, I meant that Gore didn't win Tennessee in 2000. If the guy at the top of the ticket isn't getting a home state advantage I think it's also overblown for the VP pick.

 

He did have a home state advantage, though, if you look at the margins.

 

1996 Clinton margin:

 

Kentucky: +0.9

Tennessee: +2.4

 

2000 Gore Margin:

 

Kentucky: -15.1

Tennessee: --3.8

 

Huge swing in Kentucky. Not so much in Tennessee.

 

Fast forward to 2008, and both Kentucky and Tennessee voted for McCain by around the same margin. Gore being on the top of the ticket likely made Tennessee more competitive than it otherwise was.

[skillzdadirecta]

7 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

tbh, considering Clinton's Arkansas roots, spending much of her adulthood in the state, then campaigning heavily in Upstate New York in her first Senate run and her ability to attract rural voters in 2008, it's endlessly fascinating how she couldn't do it again in 2016.

Well she's been vilified for 30 years... I mean the Evangelical Christians didn't support her and the woman LITERALLY taught Sunday School.

[Bacon]

I can't believe this is a real commercial.  It just seems so fake.

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, Bacon said:

I can't believe this is a real commercial.  It just seems so fake.

 

That's some grade a boomer bait

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, Bacon said:

I can't believe this is a real commercial.  It just seems so fake.

 

 

Yeah I see that commercial all the time when I'm working overnights and watching late night TV.

[Anathema-]

Put it on the shelf next to the commemorative coins and plates and phones.

[Anathema-]

Commemorate EVERYTHING

[PaladinSolo]

Lindsey Graham was outraised by his Dem opponent, lol.  I wonder how much GOP fundraising is being funneled straight to Trump only to leave the rest strapped for cash?

[thewhyteboar]

 

[osxmatt]

 

[CitizenVectron]

10 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

 

 

The GOP is going to go full out in claiming that voting by mail is totally fraudulent.