Bai deng
I recall when Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972 (when I was still in high school.) Now I’m old enough for Medicare.
The Chinese pronounce Biden’s name as “bai deng”. This means something like, “a long wait for nothing”. Of course without the Senate, he won’t be able to get his program through Congress.
PS. Nate Silver now says the popular vote margin may rise up to 5%, which will make the Electoral College bias even larger than I forecast. Wisconsin still looks like the tipping point state, with a 0.6% margin. That’s depressing news for Dems. Going forward, the GOP strategy should be to lose the popular vote by 5 million votes (3%).
There are more than 10 million votes still to be counted. What a disgrace.
Tags:
7. November 2020 at 12:36
“I recall when Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972 (when I was still in high school.) Now I’m old enough for Medicare.” At first I thought that couldn’t possibly be true, but then I checked Wikipedia and found that Biden was the sixth-youngest Senator in history when elected at 29, which makes it… slightly less horrifying?
7. November 2020 at 13:37
Scott,
I agree that it is a disgrace that the counting of votes takes so long. It should not be, it must not be.
On the subject of electoral college bias. How sure is this topic really? I mean, wasn’t there a situation a couple of years ago when the Democrats were boasting that the EC was giving them an advantage in the elections and an edge in the upcoming years.
Wasn’t it Bush v. Kerry? Bush had like 3 million votes more but Kerry did nearly get him in Ohio, no?
And the GOP was really worried about it. And now it completely turned, kind of ironic. But for how long? Why wouldn’t it regress to the mean or even turn around again. How “real” and how “fixed” is this EC bias really?
The Democrats at that time certainly wanted to abolish the EC right away, I’m quite sure about it. That is why the EC was abolished long ago, because both parties think beyond their own advantage. That’ s why it will be abolished soon, at any moment now.
The EC bias theory sounds a lot like monocausality, but isn’t it true that quite many factors play into it, and that even the experts back then did not predict that it would turn around. So why should they be right in the future? If this narrative of uncertainty were to be pursued, the two parties might even abolish the EC.
7. November 2020 at 14:12
Re: bias in national polling vs. EC: I don’t think it’s correct to view the bias as an exogenous “hurdle” that Dems need to overcome (not that Scott is necessarily viewing it that way). The bias is not some threshold set before the election that Dems must overcome. Rather, the “bias” is really an after-the-fact characterization of the mismatch between national polling and the EC. For example, no amount of increased turnout among left-wing voters in blue states will allow Dems to overcome the bias as that would just increase the bias itself. On the other hand, high turnout among right-wing voters in red states would actually lower the bias even as it would hurt Dems in national polling. Similarly, if Dems start to appeal more to swing voters in swing states at the expense of less enthusiasm of left-wing voters in blue states, then that would lower the “bias” with an indeterminate effect on their national polling. So, the bias is really a characterization of the national polling distribution rather than a feature of the EC that favors or needs to be overcome by either party.
So, no, neither the GOP nor the Dems should target a particular threshold in the national polling. The bias is an endogenous outcome of the *types* of voters that they target.
7. November 2020 at 14:46
Christian List: “And now it completely turned, kind of ironic.”
Here are the undemocratic aspects of our electoral system:
1) When Republicans control the White House (WH) and Senate and Dems control the House, like the last 2 years: the EC and Senate give way too much power to small states, and the House reflects national popular will.
2) When Dems control the WH and Senate and Republicans control the House (2010-2012?): the House reflects gerrymandering and the President is the one true nationally elected figure. Also, it’s totally illegitimate for the House to use its power of the purse to thwart national will embodied by the President.
3) When Dems control the WH and House and Republicans control the Senate (2014-2016): the Senate gives too much power to small states, and it’s totally illegitimate for the Senate to exercise is advise and consent power to thwart national will embodied by the President.
4) When Republicans control the WH and Dems control Congress, which was often the case before the mid-90s: the President is elected mainly on personal charisma; the Congress reflects true popular will on specific issues. All politics is local.
5) When Dems control the WH and Republicans control Congress (late 90s?): the President is the one true nationally elected figure. Impeachment, especially, represents an unacceptably undemocratic power to undo national elections.
6) When Republicans control the WH, House, and Senate: the Supreme Court is the true arbiter and guardian of our democracy.
7) When Dems control the WH, House, and Senate: the Supreme Court must not be allowed to thwart the national will reflected in the elected branches.
7. November 2020 at 15:45
You should know better than that. They pronounce his name bàidēng, with the assigned characters 拜登, meaning “make obeisance” and “ascend”.
I assume you’re thinking of 白等 for “a long wait for nothing”, but that would be pronounced differently, báiděng.
7. November 2020 at 18:00
Christian, The anti-Dem EC bias has recently become very large, and seems to be growing. For most of my life there was little bias either way.
Michael, I got this from my wife, who is Chinese. I’ll check again with her.
7. November 2020 at 19:51
Michael, My wife says the Chinese twist the pronunciation a bit to make a joke—so you are right.
7. November 2020 at 23:18
Scott,
Yes, but what is the actual bias. I don’t see the bias.
Maybe you can put it this way: It’s a parallel system that allows you to scoop an election even if you lose the popular vote. There is no inherited bias that generally favors one party, see for example 2004. It is more of a lucky loser system. The party who wins the popular vote might get a problem with the EC, the “losing” party might become a lucky loser.
Or maybe you can put it this way: the Democrats have problems in the regions such as the South, the Plains, the Rockies right now. The GOP has problems with both Coasts and to some extend with the Great Lakes.
The solution is quite simple for both sides:
Instead of moving further and further to the left, the Democrats must consider how to reach the South, the Plains and the Rockies again, in other words, they must reach out to the other side instead of stockpiling more and more Californian votes.
For the GOP, a mirror symmetry applies: Instead of moving further and further to the right, the Republicans need a strategy how to reach the Coasts again.
8. November 2020 at 00:23
1. Millions of conservatives don’t vote in CA, NY, MA, etc, because they are heavily democratic areas.
2. Only 50% of eligible voters cast a ballot.
Conclusion: You are an idiot, that consistently writes the dumbest things imaginable. The notion that democrats always win the popular vote, therefore the system must be rigged when conservatives win, is based on faulty premises.
Not to mention, we live in a republic. Read the constitution and LEARN something about how our voting process works. I know research is difficult for you, which is why it took you 50 years to produce 1 awful book, but just try.
8. November 2020 at 00:46
I agree. I find Sumner’s argument illogical.
He seems to forget that the United States is a republic.
But this is the problem with the radical left. Whenever they lose, its the constitution that is the problem. Whether it’s court packing, or adding states, or removing the electoral college, they are always looking for shortcuts. Instead of winning on ideas, they seek to rig the game in their favor. That’s a totalitarian mindset. And once you go down that route everything because subjective. Stalin would be proud of Sumner.
8. November 2020 at 00:55
“The anti-Dem EC bias has recently become very large, and seems to be growing.”
That may just be a reflection of Dems becoming more concentrated in a few geographic regions. (I realize that statement is a tautology because the bias is basically just a measure of lack of geographic diversity.) I noticed that in recent years almost all nationally prominent Dems (major Presidential candidates, VP nominees, House and Senate leaders) have been from the coasts: Biden, Harris, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Schumer, Pelosi, H. Clinton. Even Obama is from a reliably blue state. Buttigieg and Klobuchar seem to be the exceptions, and they aren’t really that prominent. In the past, Dem leaders came from all over: B. Clinton, Gore, Daschle, Gephardt, Harry Reid, Mondale, Carter. In fact, Dems used to consider it a plus when a Presidential or VP candidate came from the South. That was before they decided to write off red states as irredeemably deplorable. Republicans still seem to draw many national leaders from blue and purple states: Trump, Romney (when he ran for President), McCarthy, Paul Ryan, Hastert, Boehner, Rubio, Christie, Giuliani.
The EC rewards geographic diversity. I’m not exactly sure what made Dems stop pursuing/achieving it.
8. November 2020 at 07:02
@Jayne
I would not be so harsh on Scott. It’s not appropriate to have ad-hominem attacks. I did call him a moron once—-but he has called me similar things 10 times over—-still, I don’t like it.
But as to your main argument, I agree completely. First, of course, why do people like Scott obsess on this topic? He claims that “today” no one would ever create such a system. But in 1790, it was also true no one would create such a system—-except we did.
He seems to be unaware that Parliamentary systems have exactly the same issue—-maybe he thinks these are bad systems too. They too can choose Prime Minister whose party won more districts (which are analogous to our EC) with less total popular vote. And who elects Presidents (in non Parliamentary governments)? Almost no country. Russia and Rwanda do. A few others do.
And of course you are right about how campaigning and voting would change——Our system works exactly as it was intended——and Scott, for some reason, thinks it’s uniquely bad.
8. November 2020 at 07:05
@ Jayne
To be clear, I don’t like ad-hominem because it is lazy and arrogant——although I have to force myself not to do it. I enjoy doing it—-but it adds no value. It is not about being “civil”.
8. November 2020 at 10:32
Christian, I don’t think you understand the issue. Saying they can adjust their positions is true, but it’s exactly the problem from their perspective.
jayne, You said:
“Only 50% of eligible voters cast a ballot.
LOL. I stopped reading right there.
Harry, Being a “republic” has nothing to do with the Electoral College. The world is full of republics, almost none use the EC.
9. November 2020 at 18:21
Scott,
But why should their perspective be decisive? Only what is best for the US should be relevant, not what is best for the Democrats or the GOP.
If there is a system that forces both parties into moderation and balance, should this system not be supported?
Well, admittedly, it didn’t really work in the case of Trump, but he lost the election, didn’t he.
And the fact that the Democrats nominated Biden was clearly due to the moderation, they needed a candidate who could win outside the Democratic heartland.
BC,
Sorry, I forgot to mention it but you pretty much nailed it.
10. November 2020 at 12:31
Christian, It doesn’t force the electorate toward moderation, it forces the results to the right. Majority vote pushes toward moderation, you need 50% plus 1.