What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

The Republicans have found a strategy they think wins elections - just lie about everything, spread fear, use white, Christian and hetero identity politics. Unfortunately the left can't win using the same strategy only on reverse - as I've noted, in a straight contest between White and non-White, Christian and non-Christian, hetero and non-hetero, the former wins every time because they are in the majority in the US and likely to remain that way.

The massive caveat all of this conversation needs is that we don't have much information about the voters at this stage. We have exit polls - in a year when polling companies got things wrong (especially at state levels) - of election day voters when we know a huge chunk of the electorate voted early or mail-in and we also know there was a partisan split beteween those groups. I don't think we're in a position yet to reach conclusions.

Which is partly why everyone I see in the media is regurgitating their opinion piece "The main lesson from the US election is that, once again, I am right".

The only point I'd make on this (and I've always thought all politics is identity politics and literally no-one cares about policies so I am an extremist on this ) is that you're limiting identity too much to the obvious categories. So what you're saying works if everyone equally values their white, Christian, heterosexual identity - but we know they don't. They also value education, status, cultural signifiers, class as other identities, for example. Not all people assign the same value to the different bits of themselves/their identity and how they weight that possibly matters more. In the UK class used to be the biggest predictor of how someone votes, it's now education. There is a possibility that something similar is happening in the US (it's too soon to tell given the information we have) but in 2018 there was a big swing of college educated white people to Democrats and that seems to have largely held up. So for some white, Christian, straight people that's the bit of their identity that has valence not the other stuff.

You make it sound like this is the worst-case outcome.  There are a lot of reasons to think that this was actually the best case outcome.  One of the obvious reasons is that Biden won when his party itself seems to have lost.

I really wonder about the impact of not doing any on the ground campaigning for down-ballot races. I can see a Presidential campaign being 90% air war and working, I'm not sure that the other races don't need door-knocking, canvassing, traditional GOTV (all of which can be done safely).

The other big point on this is I wonder if this changes the GOP. They've had a high turnout election but run ahead of the President. And I wonder if they move from thinking they can only govern as a minority to actually thinking they could win votes in a high turnout election and that turnout isn't necessarily bad for them.

[OttoVonBismarck]

About 1/3 of GOP voters have a college degree, which is more than in 1996 when Bob Dole ran.  10% of GOP voters have post-college university education (same as in 96 and compared to 15% nationally now).  Trump actually increased his vote share among high income (100k+) voters compared to 2016 and got a majority of that vote.

Trump got 70+ million to vote for him because he attracted a broad coalition of very different kinds of people.  Not just evangelicals, "very fine people" and trailer park denizens, but also small business owners, sunbelt professionals, and a good chunks of Latino men enticed by his fake tough guy image and appeal to traditional values.  Some of those people are true believer Qanon suckers impervious to reason, some are not.  There are plenty of people out there who had considerable recognition of Trump's many faults and voted for him anyways

I'm holding off on analyzing any of that until we have better data, exit polling this year is particularly unrepresentative of who actually voted, and I'd avoid using it to make points. Also, cultural conservatism isn't limited to poor people, Like I myself said I come from cultural conservatives who didn't fit that mold. But I do think it's more commonly seen among the white working class than it is among the upper middle class suburban whites.

I also think it's worth noting that it probably doesn't apply as much to the actual white poor--who have cultural associations not easily generalized about, but by and large the true poor do not vote, which is something easy to forget. Most of the true white poor don't vote at all, and probably never will. We're usually talking about the lower income bands of the middle class when we generalize about the white working class.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Right, so I'm not putting a ton of stock in exit polls and am putting stock into county level data. I have a reasonably good chance of knowing what the demographics of a county are and a reasonably good chance to draw conclusions from them. Throughout the Midwest aside from Pennsylvania, Biden actually didn't substantially outperform Hillary. In some cases he did worse (like in eastern Ohio.) Why Pennsylvania doesn't tell the same tale is probably interesting and worth investigating. But it's on the basis of his performance in these counties that I'm making the claim the drew even more white working class to the polls than ever before.

His much diminished performance in suburban Georgia and Pennsylvania, as well as several other suburbs, is why I know he lost even more suburban vote. I haven't looked at the full Texas data--but it is worth noting he did worse among Texas suburban county voters than he did in 2016 but he did better than Cruz did when Beto ran against Cruz in 2018, which is probably also food for thought.

[Valmy]

Beto ran a much better campaign then the Democrats did in 2020. And Cruz is disliked by Trump supporters which hurt his cause in 2018.

This whole "Texas tough! I like trucks and shit" thing the Democratic strategists have tried to do in Texas forever just falls flat. Your voters here are immigrants and urban and suburban dwellers not 1920s ranchers. Beto had messaging actually designed to work for 21st century likely Democratic voters.

[Sheilbh]

Right, so I'm not putting a ton of stock in exit polls and am putting stock into county level data. I have a reasonably good chance of knowing what the demographics of a county are and a reasonably good chance to draw conclusions from them. Throughout the Midwest aside from Pennsylvania, Biden actually didn't substantially outperform Hillary. In some cases he did worse (like in eastern Ohio.) Why Pennsylvania doesn't tell the same tale is probably interesting and worth investigating. But it's on the basis of his performance in these counties that I'm making the claim the drew even more white working class to the polls than ever before.

On this, looking at that NYT map is fascinating - the swing in eastern Ohio just stops at the state border with Pennsylvania. No idea why, it's really interesting.

This is part of the reason why I think US news organisations maybe have too many data reporters (again I do not see the news value of building a model to predict the outcome) and could do with more actual reporters.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Some interesting counties:

Trumbull County, OH (rural, white):

2016 Trump = 51.1% 49,024 votes
2016 HRC = 44.8% 43,014 votes

2020 Trump = 54.5% 53,756
2020 Biden = 44.1% 43,534

Biden didn't lose votes here--Trump gained new voters.

Cuyahoga County, OH (Cleveland, black inner city, white suburbs):

2016 Trump = 30.6% 184,211
2016 HRC = 66.1% 398,271

2020 Trump = 32.3% 195,089
2020 Biden = 66.6% 402,315

They both gained, but Trump gained quite a bit more.

Franklin County, OH (Columbus, more diverse and higher education than Cleveland)

2016 Trump = 34.5% 199,331
2016 HRC = 60.7% 351,198

2020 Trump = 33.6% 203,154
2020 Biden = 64.8% 391,584

Biden gained 40,000 votes, Trump gained a few thousand. I'm looking at a lot of counties and this is a very small number, but it's very interesting to me to see the differences between Columbus OH and Cleveland OH. Cleveland proper has a lot in common with Detroit and Baltimore, typical northern industrial cities with high black populations. The suburbs of Cleveland are also much more white working class, these are "white industrial suburbs", small ring towns that used to have factory industries of their own. Biden about held his own here, but Trump did a good bit better.

Columbus is a very different city. In the 1980s it had something like 250,000 people now it has almost 900,000. It was never an industrial hotbed, it was the centrally located state capitol and location of the state's big land grant college. In the latter half of the 20th century and first 20 years of the 21st, Columbus has grown almost exclusively due to white collar jobs. There's a fusion effect of having state government + education in the same place. Huntington National Bank (a regional bank w/15,000 employees) is headquartered here, Nationwide Mutual a national insurance concern with 30,000 employees is headquartered here, J.P. Morgan Chase built their national IT services campus in the suburbs of Columbus in a sprawling campus that employs some 15,000+ people.  In the Northwest suburbs is where Cardinal Health, the 14th highest revenue generating company in the United States with 50,000 employees is headquartered, American Electric Power (one of the largest utilities in the U.S.) has its corporate headquarters in Columbus. Wendy's has its corporate headquarters in the northwest suburbs.

What all of these jobs have in common is these are jobs for educated people, these are not blue collar jobs. Columbus is a city that is rapidly growing as a result of 21st century jobs and its population looks like it--and Joe Biden gained 40,000 votes over Hillary Clinton there, and despite his big turnout over 2016, Trump barely gained any votes there.

[PJL]

It's not surprising to see old industrialised areas become more right-wing as time goes on. After all, they're going that way because of the 'old', much like the old peasantry in low industrialised countries were compared to the new industries. And like the peasantry in the countryside, a lack of opportunities in these left-behind towns causes their areas to progress slower and they become relatively more conservative compared to the norm.

But these voters do vote in their best interest. All voters do. People who say otherwise are really saying they're stupid but in a 'nicer' way. What the issue is, is that these voters are willing to forgo economic prosperity in return for more security/control.  But measuring security is harder to achieve than calculating economic propensity. Sure you have crime figures etc, but that's just part of the picture. Security is more of an emotional state than prosperity. So Democrats (and the left in general) need to appeal to their emotions to convince them to vote for them. It's why Brexiteers managed to win the 2016 EU referendum, despite all the economic doom & gloom of leaving from the other side. Tony Blair understood this, which is why New Labour was keen to make sure they were good at security & law & order. Even Iraq helped in a way, as it bolstered their patriotic credentials, though that was evident even when they came to power and the years preceding.

[PJL]

I also think people are focusing too narrowly on the pure political angle (left / right), and need to broaden it to the wider societal / cultural angle. There's a perception that Hollywood is a cultural liberal centre, which has been around for 20-30 years. But more interestingly has been how progressive corporations have become in recent years, or at least perceived to be. Normally they have historically been more conservative in their approach, but social media has made them more culturally progressive, for fear of bad press. As a result, they may have been a backlash against the progressive values, but one which has been projected through elections, rather than actual protests (other than the usual extremists). In a way, this has provided the necessary checks and balances to keep things level, at least to those who have felt being left behind.

[crazy canuck]

I also think people are focusing too narrowly on the pure political angle (left / right), and need to broaden it to the wider societal / cultural angle. There's a perception that Hollywood is a cultural liberal centre, which has been around for 20-30 years. But more interestingly has been how progressive corporations have become in recent years, or at least perceived to be. Normally they have historically been more conservative in their approach, but social media has made them more culturally progressive, for fear of bad press. As a result, they may have been a backlash against the progressive values, but one which has been projected through elections, rather than actual protests (other than the usual extremists). In a way, this has provided the necessary checks and balances to keep things level, at least to those who have felt being left behind.

That is a great point.  I have noticed a dramatic shift in corporate leadership over the last decade or so.  Corporate leadership is a lot more interested in exceeding legal requirements so that they can be perceived as being more culturally in tune.  I don't know for sure but I think they want to keep in touch with the values of the 20 somethings, which is very different from your typical Republican voter.

[mongers]

71.798310185186 day's till Biden is sworn in. 

[Malthus]

So far, Trump seems more focused on golfing, tantruming and firing people than on wrecking the US. Hopefully that will continue.

[Caliga]

So far, Trump seems more focused on golfing, tantruming and firing people than on wrecking the US. Hopefully that will continue.

That's always been his focus, so why should it change now?

[Admiral Yi]

Short of voting reform (HINT HINT) the only way socialists are going to make a break through is if the moderates can cement their hold so much that being crazy just doesn't work for the republicans anymore and they have to fight for the centre (ala Cameron with the Tories).
When the alternative is things going backwards then it makes sense for the Democrats to stick with safe options to secure the sane conservatives.
If the Republicans are angling for sane people though then the way is clear for the Democrats to try something outside the box and try to push forward.

All said though full support for there being socialists within the democrat party. Overton window and highlighting that the moderates are what they are and all that.

This would make sense only if the objective is to *propose* as many new progressive policies as possible rather than see them implemented.  If Republicans present a sane alternative, then more wacky ideas from the left are going to push more moderates to vote on the right.

Trump in many respects presented an ideal opportunity for progressives.  Force the country to choose between progressive ideas and insanity.

[alfred russel]

So far, Trump seems more focused on golfing, tantruming and firing people than on wrecking the US. Hopefully that will continue.

He probably won't do anything to wreck his future in the GOP. He, or a member of his family, would be a front runner in a 2024 GOP primary.

[11B4V]

So far, Trump seems more focused on golfing, tantruming and firing people than on wrecking the US. Hopefully that will continue.

He probably won't do anything to wreck his future in the GOP. He, or a member of his family, would be a front runner in a 2024 GOP primary.

They're all poison and nuts.