Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday defended the Democrats' underperformance at the polls this year, arguing that voter turnout for House Democrats — because it surpassed that for President Trump — marked "a great victory" for the party despite the loss of seats in the lower chamber.
"Did you know that House Democrats got nearly 2 million more votes than Donald Trump?" she asked reporters in the Capitol. "Everybody turned out and it was a great victory — a mandate."
Yet the Democrats' national numerical advantage did not protect a number of vulnerable House incumbents, at least 11 of whom have already lost their races to GOP challengers, with eight races still too close to call.
Additionally, Democrats failed to topple a single Republican incumbent, among a list of more than three dozen they'd targeted as vulnerable, even as Pelosi and other party leaders had predicted big gains as late as Election Day itself.
Pelosi on Friday acknowledged the disappointment of losing incumbents but suggested Democrats were disadvantaged by what she described as "the most gerrymandered, voter-suppressed political arena you could name."
Always an excuse. I know that she has to portray a positive face but I'm honestly starting to wonder whether she's getting worse and more transparent in her attempts to mislead, or if she's really become delusional and blind to reality.
Looking like it's gonna be 222-213. CNN and other media sites don't want to call some of the races for Repubs, it would seem--they're holding it as 222-205 right now, while RCP has it at 222-210--but there doesn't seem to be a way back for those seats, from my reading of the data.
In 2010, Repubs went from 178 seats to 257 (that's a fucking wave). And that was in response to two years of Obama and Biden.
This is why it confounds me that Pelosi is still speaker. She's gonna try to walk a tightrope with the factions in the House while simultaneously trying to advance a Biden/Harris agenda that will likely scare the piss out of some of her more moderate colleagues. It's not gonna work, imo. Would have been better to roll the dice with a progressive leadership. That likely would have gone south, too, but it couldn't be any worse than what's about to happen, imo.
I think 255 is a good over/under number right now, though depending on what happens with Biden, I could see it going up to as high as 265...
The scale of the losses has come to many as a shock, and yet the intramural immolation is all too familiar: Progressives accuse moderates of having alienated the party’s base, while moderates blame progressives for having scared off potential crossover voters, independents and even some Democrats in tough swing districts with sloganeering around “socialism” and calls to “defund the police.”
For the past 3½ years, through our organization, Square One, we have been working exclusively and on the ground with Democratic candidates running in precisely those sorts of districts. We are with many of our endorsed candidates from Day One, providing the connections, resources and support to launch, run and win their campaigns. And from our experience, we are sure that both arguments are wrong.
A bold claim. Can they back it up?
Here are some specifics:
It was weak strategy, based on bad polling information and poor decisions from the national party that left Democratic candidates in swing districts—and candidates of color in particular—unable to hold their own in the face of a massive, and massively underestimated, Republican voter surge. The fact is: If you’re going to win a campaign, you’ve got to campaign, which means getting in front of voters and meeting them where they are. And that was the one thing that Democrats running for Congress could not do this year, upon orders from the party’s campaign arm in Washington.
Every election cycle, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, along with the Democratic National Committee and their biggest and most influential allies, wield disproportionate influence through the weight of their endorsements and their power of the purse. Often operating in concert, and inspiring big donors to follow, they decide which candidates are “viable,” who is worthy of full financial support, how their campaigns should operate and which consultants they can hire. And this year, the direction set by D.C. Democrats proved to be a very big part of why House Democrats fell far short of a hoped-for 2020 blue wave, instead diminishing their hard-fought majority won in 2018.
Their data was bad—the result of polling that vastly underestimated how many Republicans would turn out to vote and how their ever-strengthening fidelity to President Donald Trump would cause them to back GOP candidates all the way down the ticket. Their understanding of very specific voter beliefs in very different local districts was even worse—which is why Hispanic voters, lumped together into a non-differentiated, assumedly pro-immigration and anti-Trump bloc, provided the party with such disastrous surprises in South Florida and border areas of Texas. While the party isn’t solely to blame for using bad data, it should have known better than to use polls as the main indicator of future success and voter preferences. Indeed, 2016 had offered ample warning that polling was unreliable.
Okay, that's incorrect, at least with regard to South Florida. The surprises down here in Congressional races--Shalala and Mucarsel-Powell being shown the door--weren't a consequence of super-loyal Trump voters backing other GOP candidates. Exactly the opposite: Trump benefited from the down-ticket candidates--Salazar and Gimenez--but not so much that he actually won the districts. That means there were Dem voters who crossed over to vote for the Repub candidates, but not for Trump. And that was, I think, ideology-driven (or at least what was seen as ideology by voters).
So I guess the good folks at Square One need to STFU and admit they were clueless, too...
I think most of the major Dem strategists have no clue WTF they're talking about. And Dems are way too quick to lavish praise on people who lose and those who don't know what they're talking about, probably because those people say what they want to hear or fit the narrative somehow.
Two examples off the top of my head are:
1) Why the hell does anyone still listen to James Carville? That senile lunatic hasn't been right about pretty much anything since the mid-90s, and even then it was probably only by accident. Yet, MSNBC trots him out as one of their go-to "democratic strategists" all the time.
Biden just barely won in that state, Republicans won 8 out of 14 House seats, and the Dems will likely barely squeak by with 1 out of 2 senate seats there. That's not even considering that the entire state government is run by Republicans.
Also, Tom Perez is an idiot and the DNC has been a failed clusterfuck of an organization for at least the last decade.
The Dems reeeeally need to stop listening to losers and clueless morons. But, it kinda wouldn't be the Democratic Party if they did that.
Last Edit: Nov 28, 2020 10:09:21 GMT -5 by Optimus
When asked Wednesday about recent remarks Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler made against her Democratic opponent, Rev. Raphael Warnock, Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff went on the offensive, claiming Loeffler was campaigning with a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
"[H]ere's the bottom line, Kelly Loeffler has been campaigning with a klansman," Ossoff told Fox News Wednesday. "Kelly Loeffler has been campaigning with a klansman," he repeated, "and so she is stooping to these vicious personal attacks to distract from the fact that she's been campaigning with a former member of the Ku Klux Klan."
Even CNN had to admit this is bullshit:
This is false. A former member of the KKK took a photo with Loeffler while she was campaigning earlier this month. Loeffler's campaign said the senator did not know who the man was and would have removed him from the event had she known. This is not, at all, the same as "campaigning with a klansman," as Ossoff claimed. Politicians often take pictures with people they don't know.
The DCNF pointed out that Ossoff’s statement falsely accuses Loeffler of campaigning with a member of the Ku Klux Klan, but the Twitter spokesman told the DCNF that Twitter is not going to be “the arbiter of truth,” as the company has often said.