Post-Election Results Analysis (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

The election data is always very interesting. Let's have a thread to discuss it so that it doesn't get washed away in the gameday thread.

We always suspected that a portion of the Trump vote in 2016 will leave him based on overall distaste with his conduct as president. There appears to be some evidence of that emerging . . . here's some from Wisconsin.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I think the Democrats who blame the outcome of the election on "defund the police" are doing so because they personally don't support the true intentions of defund the police and this gives them a way to oppose on the grounds of election strategy as opposed to on philosophical and policy grounds.

They would still be criticizing even if there was definitive proof that it helped Democrats in elections.

 

[DaveXA]

I think the Democrats who blame the outcome of the election on "defund the police" are doing so because they personally don't support the true intentions of defund the police and this gives them a way to oppose on the grounds of election strategy as opposed to on philosophical and policy grounds.

They would still be criticizing even if there was definitive proof that it helped Democrats in elections.

Well, I do think in a big picture view that the "defund the police" mantra that was happening after the murder of Floyd stuck and was a talking point that did end up hurting Democrats in the elections. Whether they supported it or not was irrelevant to many of the voters. Their perception was that liberal candidates supported it. Even if they didn't support it, the images with all of the signs saying "defund the police" and what happened in Minneapolis when the local government voted to make significant changes to policing. NYC and other local governments made similar changes as well. That was low hanging fruit making it an easy angle to attack on.

I think it’s a combination of both the moderates not supporting it and the voters voting based on their perception that Democrats like the idea of defending when that's not really the case in most instances.

I haven't given it a lot of thought though. More of a casual observation than an in depth look at it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Well, I do think in a big picture view that the "defund the police" mantra that was happening after the murder of Floyd stuck and was a talking point that did end up hurting Democrats in the elections.

There is zero objective evidence to support that conclusion. The journalist points out that in several of the elections that Democrats lost, "defund the police" attacks were not the primary attack and weren't even used in others.

I think Democrats who blame election losses on "defund the police" are either being dishonest due to their biases against reforming the police or they are just being lazy because they can't be bothered with more than a superficial hot take on things. I think it's a lot more of the first one than it is the second one.

 

[DaveXA]

There is zero objective evidence to support that conclusion. The journalist points out that in several of the elections that Democrats lost, "defund the police" attacks were not the primary attack and weren't even used in others.

I think Democrats who blame election losses on "defund the police" are either being dishonest due to their biases against reforming the police or they are just being lazy because they can't be bothered with more than a superficial hot take on things. I think it's a lot more of the first one than it is the second one.

Maybe, I'm not convinced it wasn't a significant factor. I mean, I'm just thinking out loud here, but what would be other reasons Democrats would lose that many seats in the House? I was actually thinking they would gain seats based on polling. Or was the polling really that bad, giving them a false sense of security? I didn't see the results in the House coming tbh.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Maybe, I'm not convinced it wasn't a significant factor. I mean, I'm just thinking out loud here, but what would be other reasons Democrats would lose that many seats in the House?

Did you watch the video?

 

[DaveXA]

Did you watch the video?

Sorry, actually I didn't. I'm hard of hearing and the video isn't captioned. So if that was covered in the video, I missed it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Sorry, actually I didn't. I'm hard of hearing and the video isn't captioned. So if that was covered in the video, I missed it.

Didn't realize it wasn't captioned. It's Peacock so it should be captioned. Maybe it's a twitter issue.

The journalist points how Republicans didn't really hammer Democrats that lost with "defund the police" attack ads. They hit them with more with other messages like supporting terrorist by allegedly teaching at a school that promoted Islamic extremism, being an elitist crony and being a former lobbyist. In all of those races, the Democrats blame "defund the police" and socialism for having lost those elections.

 

[DaveXA]

Didn't realize it wasn't captioned. It's Peacock so it should be captioned. Maybe it's a twitter issue.

The journalist points how Republicans didn't really hammer Democrats that lost with "defund the police" attack ads. They hit them with more with other messages like supporting terrorist by allegedly teaching at a school that promoted Islamic extremism, being an elitist crony and being a former lobbyist. In all of those races, the Democrats blame "defund the police" and socialism for having lost those elections.

Yeah, I guess the attacks were different here in Virginia. I suppose each district has their own angles to hit with.

 

[porculator]

Sorry but that guy is full of it. I live in VA and that Islamaphobic ad got more airtime about how stupid it was than the ad itself.
The overwhelming theme of the republican message in the VA purple district races was that the democratic candidates would want to defund the police, and something something Pelosi. And it worked in every district but Spanberger's, because the "defund the police" argument doesn't really hold water with a former CIA spy. But it worked in every other purple district in the state.
In spite of its good intention, defund the police is an incredibly stupid slogan to use in at least half of the country. If you're trying to get more than 10% of the vote in rural areas, you have to stop attacking cops. Most people actually like the cops in rural areas because they're just regular members of the community that help you when you need help. In the city where they can just be faceless thugs from out of town with a power trip, sure. I get it. But its a stupid message everywhere else.
It gets justified by "what we mean is, put the money towards mental health support, community services, etc etc)". Well forking start out with that part, if that's what you mean. No one says "defund the fire department" and then says "well, we really mean put more money in fire prevention standards and maintenance."

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Messaging is a continual problem for the Democrats. It's not that their ideas are always terrible, but they do a really terrible job in branding them. Part of it is that they often take their initial messaging from activists who have no real political acumen. Defund the Police is a good example of that. It started at the grassroots level and the Dems never really try to rebrand it into something that could be easily messaged until AFTER the Republicans had locked into that clumsy slogan.

I have tried to defend the policy, which I actually think is really solid, but people lock into the name and how Republicans have been able to brand it. This is something the Democrats have to get better at. They have to start defining themselves instead of letting Republicans get out the gate defining them and then play whack-a-mole messaging trying to take the narrative back.

 

[porculator]

Yea its harder for the democrats because their plans actually are more nuanced than the republicans at this point. Trump's whole 2016 campaign was built on 3 word slogans (and one 4 word slogan that came on a hat) which literally had no additional substance. "Build the wall" meant, build the wall. Didn't matter if it kept anyone out. People just wanted a wall.
Everyone loves a good 3 word slogan, but you need some that don't come with if's and but's.

 

[Taurus]

Democrats have a problem with nuancing themselves right up their own arses.

 

[always4su]

Yea its harder for the democrats because their plans actually are more nuanced than the republicans at this point. Trump's whole 2016 campaign was built on 3 word slogans (and one 4 word slogan that came on a hat) which literally had no additional substance. "Build the wall" meant, build the wall. Didn't matter if it kept anyone out. People just wanted a wall.
Everyone loves a good 3 word slogan, but you need some that don't come with if's and but's.

And I'm not picking on his supporters, but 3 word slogans are a perfect marketing strategy for them. His cult likes things they can easily remember and chant. You get past 3 or 4 words and watch how bored they get. Just watch some youtube footage of his rallies.

 

[J-DONK]

Sorry but that guy is full of it. I live in VA and that Islamaphobic ad got more airtime about how stupid it was than the ad itself.
The overwhelming theme of the republican message in the VA purple district races was that the democratic candidates would want to defund the police, and something something Pelosi. And it worked in every district but Spanberger's, because the "defund the police" argument doesn't really hold water with a former CIA spy. But it worked in every other purple district in the state.
In spite of its good intention, defund the police is an incredibly stupid slogan to use in at least half of the country. If you're trying to get more than 10% of the vote in rural areas, you have to stop attacking cops. Most people actually like the cops in rural areas because they're just regular members of the community that help you when you need help. In the city where they can just be faceless thugs from out of town with a power trip, sure. I get it. But its a stupid message everywhere else.
It gets justified by "what we mean is, put the money towards mental health support, community services, etc etc)". Well forking start out with that part, if that's what you mean. No one says "defund the fire department" and then says "well, we really mean put more money in fire prevention standards and maintenance."

No one said they didn't run ads on defund the police, just that it wasn't the main attacking point. Here is an recent article about defund the police: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/me...cal-discussion-n988541/ncrd1233158#blogHeader

The new survey from Monmouth University found that 77 percent of American adults say that "defund the police" means to "change the way the police departments operate," not to eliminate them. That view is shared by 73 percent of white, non-college educated Americans and two-thirds of Republicans, Trump's core voters.

An anecdote doesn't mean much overall. If someone's premise is messages like defund the police messaging/ads lost an election, show me how it's an issue. That poll is actually from July, do you have better data that shows Republican messaging made strong inroads on this view? If messaging was the issue like you suggest polls shouldn't show a clear understanding of the phrase "defund the police".

What purple districts were lost that you think it played a part in?

My overall point is some democrats thinking being to far left cost them seats. However, a huge amount of progressive ballot initiatives won. "The Squad" almost doubled in size up to 7. Every single swing state rep that supported M4A won their seat. Let's not forget the centrist as it comes Joe Biden as the main ticket draw. The evidence that "defund the police", or any other "leftist" stance cost seats, seems insanely thin.

 

[porculator]

No one said they didn't run ads on defund the police, just that it wasn't the main attacking point. Here is an recent article about defund the police: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/me...cal-discussion-n988541/ncrd1233158#blogHeader



An anecdote doesn't mean much overall. If someone's premise is messages like defund the police messaging/ads lost an election, show me how it's an issue. That poll is actually from July, do you have better data that shows Republican messaging made strong inroads on this view? If messaging was the issue like you suggest polls shouldn't show a clear understanding of the phrase "defund the police".

What purple districts were lost that you think it played a part in?

My overall point is some democrats thinking being to far left cost them seats. However, a huge amount of progressive ballot initiatives won. "The Squad" almost doubled in size up to 7. Every single swing state rep that supported M4A won their seat. Let's not forget the centrist as it comes Joe Biden as the main ticket draw. The evidence that "defund the police", or any other "leftist" stance cost seats, seems insanely thin.

Progressive ideas are popular in progressive areas. In 10 years there will be 100 members of "the squad", but all that means is that already blue districts are more blue. Meanwhile there will still be a roughly even split that tilts red because our government is structurally biased towards rural areas.

Here is a "purple" district that I am from, where democrats raised 4x as much as republicans and lost by 5 points

Virginia's 5th Congressional District election, 2020

Bob Good (R) defeated Cameron Webb (D) in the general election for Virginia's 5th Congressional District on November 3, 2020. Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

These are the winner, Bob Good's ads. One is about his opponents ties to China (which shoehorns in a picture of him kneeling). One is about defund the police. It's all this culture war BS that plays well in rural areas.

Radical Ideas

Good for VA CD-05 started airing this Negative ad about Webb for VA CD-05 on 09/01/20 in the VA CD-05 2020 General election.

host2.adimpact.com

Democrats need to take a lesson from republicans and stop broadcasting their unpopular messages to people that won't respond well to it. Republicans don't go trumpeting "lower taxes for the rich only!" to everyone, because it would be idiotic. Rich folks already know they'll lower their taxes so they'll continue to vote Republican. Progressives know the democrats are on their side for some of their niche issues that may not be broadly popular, so there's no need to keep pushing it. Just get them into office.

 

[RobF]

These are the winner, Bob Good's ads. One is about his opponents ties to China (which shoehorns in a picture of him kneeling). One is about defund the police. It's all this culture war BS that plays well in rural areas.

Radical Ideas

Good for VA CD-05 started airing this Negative ad about Webb for VA CD-05 on 09/01/20 in the VA CD-05 2020 General election.

host2.adimpact.com

Sure. But that's an example of Republicans broadcasting a message. Not an example of the Democratic candidate broadcasting the same message. Did the Democratic candidate broadcast messages about their ties to China and defunding the police?

Democrats need to take a lesson from republicans and stop broadcasting their unpopular messages to people that won't respond well to it. Republicans don't go trumpeting "lower taxes for the rich only!" to everyone, because it would be idiotic. Rich folks already know they'll lower their taxes so they'll continue to vote Republican. Progressives know the democrats are on their side for some of their niche issues that may not be broadly popular, so there's no need to keep pushing it. Just get them into office.

The analogy here would be with Republicans excluding members of the party who publicly support lowering taxes for the rich from holding senior positions, and even arguing publicly against lowering taxes for the rich, not with Republicans merely not actively promoting it.

For that lesson as stated to be applicable, there would have to be no significant number of people who could be associated with the Republican party arguing for lower taxes for the rich, and for there to be no Republicans publicly supporting doing so.

That's clearly not the case. If anything, the Republican party actively leans into the proposal, with the arguments about 'trickle down' and how 'big government is bad' we're all familiar with. They don't typically run with "lower taxes for the rich only!" in their ads (just as Democrats weren't typically running with "Defund the police!") but they absolutely talk about taxes. A lot.

If anything, the lesson here is that you're going to be hit with the charge anyway, so frame it in as positive way as you can. Not actively try to disavow it: doing so will give the attacks more credibility, people won't believe you, and you'll hurt your own support at the same time.

 

[Sandman]

Yea its harder for the democrats because their plans actually are more nuanced than the republicans at this point. Trump's whole 2016 campaign was built on 3 word slogans (and one 4 word slogan that came on a hat) which literally had no additional substance. "Build the wall" meant, build the wall. Didn't matter if it kept anyone out. People just wanted a wall.
Everyone loves a good 3 word slogan, but you need some that don't come with if's and but's.

I said something similar in a different thread. The Democrats need a slogan that people can cheer to. "Defund the Police" ain't it. A better sell would be "Let cops be cops." In other words, let the cops worry about enforcing the laws. Don't have them getting involved with people suffering from mental health. I can hear people chanting "let cops be cops." It comes across as supporting the police while the plan itself is the same as "Defund the Police."

They have missed an opportunity to really stick it to the Republicans on their efforts to throw out inner-city (African-American votes). Again, a simple chant "Let Blacks Vote" should be shouted out at every Rudy G press conference. There are Republicans that still do not like to look like racists. They can be on board with "count LEGAL votes" but when that turns into "count WHITE votes" then they are out.

Democrats don't set the narrative very well.

 

[superchuck500]

Interesting context analysis of raw vote numbers.