Post-Election Results Analysis (4 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.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think opposing socialism does well for Republicans wanting to reach Hispanic voters. And I think that (increasing Hispanic support) will be the driving force of any potentially successful effort to expand the Republican coalition - as opposed, say, towards getting more support from upper-income suburban women.

Is opposing socialism a strong play with the broad Hispanic population? I'm sure it is with Cuban Americans, but I don't know enough about other populations. That wasn't my initial thought though.

 

[not2rich]

Is opposing socialism a strong play with the broad Hispanic population? I'm sure it is with Cuban Americans, but I don't know enough about other populations. That wasn't my initial thought though.

Anytime someone throws out the "socialism" label, I always want to ask them to define the term.

These days, it just seems like a loose and sloppy term that means one thing to one side, and another to the other side. But for the right, it seems like a reliable demonization scare tactic.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Looking at CNNs exit polls data shows that Trump increased "Latino" support by almost 20% from 2016 to 32% in 2020 and increased black support 50% to 12%. That was done while being called the most racist President in the modern era.
In Florida he went from 35% to 47% with Latinos while seeing no change with blacks (8% to 9%).
In Texas he went from 34% and 11% to 41% and 9% (a decrease)
In Georgia he went from 27% and 9% to 37% and 11%
In Arizona he went from 31% to 36% (no data on black voters)


Even more to the point: I think Republicans have lost a good amount of the "educated" white vote forever, or at least for this generation or so.
Take Georgia as an example: People assume that Georgia turned on black voters. no doubt black voters were the difference, but the white vote share of the electorate was basically the same as in 2016, CNN has it up 1% from 60% to 61% actually, and Trump saw his support decline from 75% to 69%. The black share of the vote was 29% and declined from 30% 4 years ago. And Trump actually GAINED black support, from 9% to 11%

I am sure there are going to be Republicans who think they can get those voters back, but I don't. The base of the party is not going to tolerate a Romney-type of anything close.

One final thing I will say as well. I don;t think it is that hard to get 40% hispanic vote for Republicans, they have already done it in several places. And there is already a real tension, imo, in Democratic policies as it relates to Covid. Do Democrats placate the rich urban liberals and the middle class suburban women by pushing "closing up"? That does not appeal to large swaths of Hispanics - as well as white working class, their interests here align. It is something Republicans would do well to exploit in the coming year.

All of the above relies on identity politics stereotyping. That's a mistake on so many levels.

 

[MT15]

Just came across this discussion of “exit” polling on Twitter. I don’t know how we can even trust the exit polls either.

 

[J-DONK]

Just came across this discussion of “exit” polling on Twitter. I don’t know how we can even trust the exit polls either.

Everyone knew this year would be bad for exit polling. However, they do need to figure out a better methodology if mail-in voting becomes the norm.

 

[Xeno]

Anytime someone throws out the "socialism" label, I always want to ask them to define the term.

These days, it just seems like a loose and sloppy term that means one thing to one side, and another to the other side. But for the right, it seems like a reliable demonization scare tactic.

The right wing succeeded in making socialism synonymous with communism even though they're completely different. Unfortunately the American electorate is too proud of being uneducated to learn the difference. I even had to explain it to my boss who is a very intelligent person who unfortunately falls for propaganda too easily.

Communism = government takes control of your business
Socialism = everybody in the office owns part of the business

Obviously these are gross simplifications but it's amazing how quickly people say, "Oh, that's all? Well that doesn't sound bad," when it's explained simply to them.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Is opposing socialism a strong play with the broad Hispanic population? I'm sure it is with Cuban Americans, but I don't know enough about other populations. That wasn't my initial thought though.

And Venezuelans, the other large population in Miami

 

[J-DONK]

The right wing succeeded in making socialism synonymous with communism even though they're completely different. Unfortunately the American electorate is too proud of being uneducated to learn the difference. I even had to explain it to my boss who is a very intelligent person who unfortunately falls for propaganda too easily.

Communism = government takes control of your business
Socialism = everybody in the office owns part of the business

Obviously these are gross simplifications but it's amazing how quickly people say, "Oh, that's all? Well that doesn't sound bad," when it's explained simply to them.

When this is discussed in American politics what we are really talking about though is social democracy. Which in that system the state/people doesn't own the capital, or the means of production. It's often called the Nordic model. The big changes would be higher tax rates for higher income earners, larger social safety net(M4A, free college, higher minimum wage), and stronger labor unions. This is what gets classified as "socialism" in America. It's a misnomer to call this socialism.

P.S. Class warfare is real, and has been taking American lives for a very long time. Feel free to google Ludlow, Herrin, and Coal wars. I'll never understand why Americans gave away a lot of their labor rights that their ancestors literally bleed for.

 

[not2rich]

The right wing succeeded in making socialism synonymous with communism even though they're completely different. Unfortunately the American electorate is too proud of being uneducated to learn the difference. I even had to explain it to my boss who is a very intelligent person who unfortunately falls for propaganda too easily.

Communism = government takes control of your business
Socialism = everybody in the office owns part of the business

Obviously these are gross simplifications but it's amazing how quickly people say, "Oh, that's all? Well that doesn't sound bad," when it's explained simply to them.

I think a lot of business owners wouldn't like the definition above either.

 

[Xeno]

When this is discussed in American politics what we are really talking about though is social democracy. Which in that system the state/people doesn't own the capital, or the means of production. It's often called the Nordic model. The big changes would be higher tax rates for higher income earners, larger social safety net(M4A, free college, higher minimum wage), and stronger labor unions. This is what gets classified as "socialism" in America. It's a misnomer to call this socialism.

I can't think of any example where socialism has been used as an actual form of government but it's late. My point stands though. A lot of people have been duped into thinking what the left wants is something completely different from what it is.

I think a lot of business owners wouldn't like the definition above either.

Until they actually do the research and see that every large company that has offered to make a portion of their business available to their employees for purchase has had higher employee retention, engagement, happiness, productivity and a rise in profits as a result. A lot of business owners aren't willing to do the research though.

 

[not2rich]

I can't think of any example where socialism has been used as an actual form of government but it's late. My point stands though. A lot of people have been duped into thinking what the left wants is something completely different from what it is.



Until they actually do the research and see that every large company that has offered to make a portion of their business available to their employees for purchase has had higher employee retention, engagement, happiness, productivity and a rise in profits as a result. A lot of business owners aren't willing to do the research though.

Does that apply to small business owners (which are most business owners)?

 

[Xeno]

Does that apply to small business owners (which are most business owners)?

Depends on what you mean by small because that's a really murky term. A lot of businesses you or I wouldn't consider small are classified in such a way.

My office, where there are only six of us including the boss? Probably not because he's the only one with capital to keep the company afloat.

Dan Price is a good example, though he doesn't quite match the example I gave. I can only find a range of 51-200 employees, but that's still considered "small." Anyway, what he did was took a pay cut in the range of $1mil so he could offer all of his employees $70k/year minimum, plus benefits, vacation, childcare etc. So instead of offering them a portion of the company with a chance at profit he just gave them the profit. The company has exploded since he decided to do that.

 

[DaveXA]

Depends on what you mean by small because that's a really murky term. A lot of businesses you or I wouldn't consider small are classified in such a way.

My office, where there are only six of us including the boss? Probably not because he's the only one with capital to keep the company afloat.

Dan Price is a good example, though he doesn't quite match the example I gave. I can only find a range of 51-200 employees, but that's still considered "small." Anyway, what he did was took a pay cut in the range of $1mil so he could offer all of his employees $70k/year minimum, plus benefits, vacation, childcare etc. So instead of offering them a portion of the company with a chance at profit he just gave them the profit. The company has exploded since he decided to do that.

I don't know how this compares, but some companies award employees company stock which counts for something. Many companies offer employee benefits in addition to pay. Each has to decide what they think is best for retaining talent. It's an interesting subject though.

 

[Xeno]

I don't know how this compares, but some companies award employees company stock which counts for something. Many companies offer employee benefits in addition to pay. Each has to decide what they think is best for retaining talent. It's an interesting subject though.

The problem is most businesses are much more interested in profit than the people who actually generate it. I could find a job that pays a lot better than the one I have but I doubt I could find a job that pays a lot better and offers the same level of benefits and pays for those benefits instead of taking them out of my check and offers me vacation and sick leave and offers the retirement matching mine does and offers the level of job security I enjoy. AND! I don't even get drug tested lol.

Ultimately what I'm getting at is there are so many ways business could do better by treating employees better and we have one side that wants to stop leaving it up to business to do the right thing and another side that won't shut up about bootstraps. We have the most productive workforce in the world and we work far more than the rest of the western world while making much less and none of our benefits are guaranteed.

 

[Dragon]

When this is discussed in American politics what we are really talking about though is social democracy. Which in that system the state/people doesn't own the capital, or the means of production. It's often called the Nordic model. The big changes would be higher tax rates for higher income earners, larger social safety net(M4A, free college, higher minimum wage), and stronger labor unions. This is what gets classified as "socialism" in America. It's a misnomer to call this socialism.

P.S. Class warfare is real, and has been taking American lives for a very long time. Feel free to google Ludlow, Herrin, and Coal wars. I'll never understand why Americans gave away a lot of their labor rights that their ancestors literally bleed for.

Social Democracy:

A mixture of capitalism and Socialism.

Businesses are still privately owned and managed, and owners get to profit from their investments
Taxes are higher (but not really when everything is taken into account)

Major differences is that certain things are considered a community responsibility:

Education - from kindergarden to university. Those kids are the future of our society. The better educated they are, the more they can contribute. Not unlike the business investment in new tools and machines. We chose to invest in people too

Healthcare - from a busines perspective a sound investment. If people can get the necessary treatments when they need it and get regular checkups so potential problems are dealt with early, is that in any way different from the regular maintenance checks a business owner does on his machines ? Society as "business" is better off if people are healthy and productive than the opposite.

Minimum wage/paid vacation/limitation on workdays
Many research projects shows that a person is most effective the first 40 hours they work every week. After that the efficiency drops and the number of errors increase. Which is why it makes good sense. Some companies are even moving to a 4 day workweek and find that even with the shorter hours the overall productivity increases and so does the employee satisfaction. People are simply more focused and motivated when they work that way.

The company I work for simply send people home if they hit 40 hours in a week. Company policy.

 

[Poison]

I am not sure that this is the appropriate thread for it, but a very amusing account from a Kenyan journalist covering the US election as if he was a US journalist covering an election in Africa (with apologies if it has been posted elsewhere):

 

[DaveXA]

Social Democracy:

A mixture of capitalism and Socialism.

Businesses are still privately owned and managed, and owners get to profit from their investments
Taxes are higher (but not really when everything is taken into account)

Major differences is that certain things are considered a community responsibility:

Education - from kindergarden to university. Those kids are the future of our society. The better educated they are, the more they can contribute. Not unlike the business investment in new tools and machines. We chose to invest in people too

Healthcare - from a busines perspective a sound investment. If people can get the necessary treatments when they need it and get regular checkups so potential problems are dealt with early, is that in any way different from the regular maintenance checks a business owner does on his machines ? Society as "business" is better off if people are healthy and productive than the opposite.

Minimum wage/paid vacation/limitation on workdays
Many research projects shows that a person is most effective the first 40 hours they work every week. After that the efficiency drops and the number of errors increase. Which is why it makes good sense. Some companies are even moving to a 4 day workweek and find that even with the shorter hours the overall productivity increases and so does the employee satisfaction. People are simply more focused and motivated when they work that way.

The company I work for simply send people home if they hit 40 hours in a week. Company policy.

It depends. A lot of people are capable of working 50-60 hours per week with little drop-off in productivity. There are a lot of variables. I can assure you that people would rather make time and a half working for a company 60 hours than working 2 jobs making regular wages for 60 hours. In a lot of circumstances, 40 hours per week isn't enough for the head of a family of 5. When I was younger, I frequently worked 50-60 hours per week. I was fine with it. I know people who worked 2 full time jobs for years. It was rough, but they felt it was worth it to them to provide for their family. So I'm not really a fan of limiting hours to 40.

That said, more and more companies are now limiting hours to 30 or less. That's also not feasible. Too many underemployed people have to get government support or second jobs. That no easy way to live either. This neat 40 hours per week ideal is pretty rare in practice.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It depends. A lot of people are capable of working 50-60 hours per week with little drop-off in productivity. There are a lot of variables. I can assure you that people would rather make time and a half working for a company 60 hours than working 2 jobs making regular wages for 60 hours. In a lot of circumstances, 40 hours per week isn't enough for the head of a family of 5. When I was younger, I frequently worked 50-60 hours per week. I was fine with it. I know people who worked 2 full time jobs for years. It was rough, but they felt it was worth it to them to provide for their family. So I'm not really a fan of limiting hours to 40.

That said, more and more companies are now limiting hours to 30 or less. That's also not feasible. Too many underemployed people have to get government support or second jobs. That no easy way to live either. This neat 40 hours per week ideal is pretty rare in practice.

A strict 40 hour work week would be much more feasible if we had some sort of M4A and businesses paid a living wage. If 40 hours a week does not work, the solution isn't to work more, it's to be compensated fairly.