Paul Waldman unintentionally illustrates the confusion gripping liberals right now. He's talking here about vulnerable Democrats in swing districts:
Here’s the political dilemma they find themselves in: Although tackling difficult problems and passing legislation won’t ever guarantee victory for a party, not doing so almost certainly guarantees defeat. Delivering for the voters is the necessary but not sufficient condition for success.
....There’s no real mystery about what could help Democrats now. Only two times in recent decades has the president’s party avoided a major defeat in a midterm election — and it wasn’t because the party delivered well-designed legislation that brought tangible benefits to the electorate, who then flocked to the polls in a show of gratitude.
Both times it was because that electorate got angry at the opposition party. The first time was in 1998, when voters were angry at Republicans over the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, and the second was in 2002, when a Republican scorched-earth campaign convinced them that Democrats were on the side of terrorists.
So which is it? Are Democrats doomed if they don't pass great legislation? Or does it not really matter because voters mostly vote against a party, not for it?
IHNRAC,¹ but I'll take door number two. It's hard for me to think of any good examples where legislation played a key role in a national election. Reagan's tax cuts, maybe, though even that's iffy.² Or possibly Bush's Medicare prescription bill among elderly voters, though there's not much evidence for that.
I have to remind myself all the time that no matter how oblivious we think most voters are, they are even more oblivious than we think. They simply don't pay attention to politics and haven't got the slightest idea of what legislation is pending or whether Joe Manchin is being a dick. Hell, even the stuff they think they know is usually wrong.
So from an electoral point of view, nobody should be worrying about the failure of voting rights or BBB. It's far more important to make swing voters afraid of Republicans. You'd think that would be pretty easy these days, but so far Democrats haven't found the magic key. A strong economy will keep us in the game, but we still need a killer app against the party of the Big Lie.
¹I Have Never Run A Campaign.
²Reagan's reelection landslide was primarily due to a booming economy. His tax cuts helped seal the deal, but didn't really play a huge role.
In re your footnote 2: Reagan's reelection landslide was due primarily to his very strong personal popularity. He had painstakingly crafted an image for himself as the kind of practical, simple, down-to-earth, kind person that everybody wishes they had for an uncle and for a president.
Maybe, but I'd say it was more due to the fact that incumbents usually won big provided the economy was strong. FDR, Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon all won huge reelection landslides. There were no squeakers in those days when the White House party secured a second term. Even Bill Clinton won big.
Like I said last time: use their own words against them. Include the hateful, eliminationist rhetoric Republicans normally only direct to their supporters in every Democratic ad. Make it clear to swing/low-info voters that Republicans hate them and want them dead.
Amen, bro! I've been saying this for years. Republican-talk is campaign GOLD. But Democrats seem to hire highly-paid "consultants" who insist they need to be "positive" and "nice." Sure, these are Democratic strengths -- but by not hitting their opponents weaknesses, they make inadequate headway when the voters hit the polls.
+1
+1
But not passing some of their priorities means Bernie Bro talking points will be used against Dems in the general election...
The key is getting the Covid numbers significantly down. I really think it boils down to that. At least the impression that we're reaching an end to the pandemic would brighten Dem prospects enormously.
Additionally, as silly and full of misinformation as the previous admin's near-daily Corona briefings were, I think having a regular information update -- done competently -- would also contribute to a better election environment.
I'm pretty sure that's happening now--but since the crazy is gone, it's no longer considered newsworthy.
Ain’t that the truth.
Omicron is declining
The only issue we face as a nation, as a species, is organized conservatism.
They're poison, they're death.
Everything they do, and have done, is evil.
Democrats never talk about it.
Democrats act like it's a reasonable disagreement and they're having a reasonable debate.
Republicans are never reasonable, they're always evil, every day, all day, for all reasons. It's wrong for them to be there.
Republicans are pro-crime, pro-disease, pro-pollution, pro-rape, pro-slavery, pro-torture and pro-extinction.
All Republicans support all those things, that they deny it and insist they do not is delusion or lying and usually both.
Republican support all those things, all the time: they are pro-crime, pro-disease, pro-pollution, pro-rape, pro-slavery, pro-torture and pro-extinction.
Just because they deny it doesn't mean it isn't true.
Democrats should actually talk about this.
Democrats should talk about it.
Everything they do, and have done, is evil. Democrats never talk about it. Democrats act like it's a reasonable disagreement and they're having a reasonable debate.
You apparently don't watch MSNBC, or spend much time on Twitter Many Democrats have been absolutely scorching in their condemnation of Republicans of late.
The problem is the small number of voters who are actually up for grabs tend to be low-information, non-political junkies. They don't consume much media. It's very, very hard to reach them.
Are they candidates for anything who are so scorching?
Yep.
But how do you really feel???
😉
Unfortunately, Republicans foster policies that keep the pandemic going--but calling them out on it is treated the same as the Republicans insisting that Democrats are party of a baby eating pedophile cult. I mean, no one would believe anyone would really try to spread the pandemic, would they???
Republicans create misery, then exploit it.
That's what conservatism is.
Comet Ping Pong & Covid-19 appear consecutively in the dictionary.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Good one!!!!!!!
So which is it? Are Democrats doomed if they don't pass great legislation? Or does it not really matter because voters mostly vote against a party, not for it?
David Shor says there's a great deal of evidence persuadable voters in the main usually exhibit a strong status-quo bias with respect to policy, and that therefore passing legislation usually hurts the incumbency party. I expect that's right. You can imagine the ads targeting BBB had it passed ("free money for lazy welfare addicts" etc).
Kevin's pretty much right on this. The vast majority of voters are low information people who vote with their gut. Democrats will never get ahead thinking all they have to do is pass popular legislation. First, liberals lack the coordinated media machine conservatives use to propagandize their voters, so it's a mug's game trying to get attention for something Dems are doing in Congress. Second, the people who benefit most from Democratic programs are also the least likely to turn out to vote and reward the politicians who passed it. That's not an argument for giving up and not doing anything, but the political calculus about selling it has to change.
Yes.
The bottom line. You cannot influence fools, those who are attached to t-Rump and the repulsives and those who are constantly watching faux.
First you must get their attention which is virtually impossible.
Then, you must change their minds which means critical thinking skills of which none of these folks have.
Lastly, you must get them to listen. Their ears and what is left of their minds, is closed.
Good luck!
The incredible thing to me, is not the hard-core antagonism of Republican voters, but that so many Democratic voters don't seem to care if Republicans or even Trump comes back into power. To combat this, you will have to come up with a lot of responses to the easy cynicism traps:
1. Neither side is getting us what we need, so what difference does it make?
2. My vote doesn't matter up against big money. They control everything in both parties.
3. I heard on Fox News that Biden has done things that resemble what Trump did. See, Democratic politicians say they're better than Trump, then they do the same things!
4. Oh yeah, more emails from the Democrats saying This Election Is The Most Important In Your Lifetime. Every election it's no different.
4. Me and my family did okay while Trump was president. What does it matter if he gets back in?
Elections in the US are won on the margins (this is true of course for every two party system). A few percentage points make the difference. If you seriously want to claim that such a major, highly publicized disaster has no effect on the result I have a bridge...
Of course there is also the self inflicted COVID communication disaster. It should have been made clear from the beginning that GOP mismanagement of the pandemic has made coping with it much harder than it should have been. And, even more importantly, exaggerated optimism ought to have been avoided at all cost. This will also move the vote on the margins.
Having said all this: They had no choice but try to push these legislations through. The country is going to the dogs and a President can not just watch it go to the dogs; he needs to try to prevent it no matter how long the odds. All the more when all the other really large countries are already even farer down the path to the dogs, in fact they already arrived (India, Brazil, China, Russia!).
I forgot to add: Biden understands this; Kevin obviously doesn't.
Dems have ALREADY passed extremely meaningful legislation in this year (with Covid relief and a real infrastructure package)... that should have been more than enough to run on.
But Dems have two structural problems with their "good government" strategy:
1) There's almost nothing they can pass that Fox News can't spin into a huge negative. They will NEVER get credit from right wingers, or really anyone in the middle, for doing anything good.
2) Many of the Dem coalition are so worn out by years of filibusters preventing any progressive legislation that there really isn't ANY stale half loaf they're willing to accept anymore. You didn't pass the New Deal? Screw it, we're staying home next time!
Fox News spin? How about the "mainstream" media? The stuff that anybody who watches/reads/listens to (I guess the current word is "consumes")? Every op-ed needs to take a swing at Biden and Dems in general, even if it's about something totally different. The good news is portrayed darkly:
Covid relief -- Covid is still a thing. Also, not enough tests.
Infrastructure package -- oh, the "bipartisan mini-bill"? Couldn't get "the big one", which had been stripped down to bare bones and then most of the bones thrown away before Dems just gave up?
Economy? Low-ball jobs figures coming out every month, later corrected upwards significantly, so who notices?
Soon -- which, by Schumer time, will be a month after the November election -- the Voting Rights package will be declared dead, too. After a full year of drip-drip-drip, vote tonight! No, vote tomorrow! No, before Valentines Day! Easter! July 4!
You're right about demoralized Dem voters. I'm one, although I will continue to contribute and will drag myself to the (early voting!) polls. Too many of us won't, as you note.
Lamestream media, please.
Still think my referring to Washington Monthly, particularly post-Le Tourneau & post-Martin Longman, as part of the DC establishment lamestream media is why they took away comments.
The Republicans always do better in these fights because they have utter contempt for governance.
Property taxes go up--blame the president
Gas costs more that $1/gallon--blame the preseident.
You got a speeding ticket, blame the president.
Garbage stickers cost more--blame the president
etc.
Rinse and repeat.
"The Republicans always do better in these fights because they have utter contempt for governance."
+1. That let them get away with a big show of being decisive and in charge when W and trump were in office. In both cases it was just play-acting. But look what it took to expose this for what it was: slow-motion generational disaster in Iraq, Katrina, covid.
Rs are fundamentally about putting on shadow-puppet and dominance shows, now that there's no Cold War to impose discipline on them. This points to a big D weakness, though. Positioning themselves as everything Rs aren't, the anti-Rs, means they've given up on the performative side of politicking. They need to learn from the PR chops of the Jan 6 committee.
& all the warnings of KanYe's eventual MAGA turn were there in September 2005 when he condemned Bush-43 as not caring about Black people.
So from an electoral point of view, nobody should be worrying about the failure of voting rights...
The urgent need to pass voting rights legislation is not that the people en masse will reward Democrats for enacting a good, pro-democracy policy.
It's so the people can actually vote! That is, the people at large, not just the people in red states and red districts.
Let's not be thick-headed about a real threat to our democracy. All theories about why people vote are meaningless when people are denied the right in the first place.
And when people have to overcome great hardship to vote, a hardship that many of those people will not be able to overcome, it is denying their right to vote.
A thread on voting in GA, a blue state run by Republicans:
https://twitter.com/audiomagnate/status/1481970830766755845?s=20
Thank you.
That's right - it was nothing but good advertising that got the GOP a win in 2002. Waldman is as silly as ever.
No, it was averting a Vietcong-al-Qaeda takeover of the government by Max Cleland & his ilk that drove the GQP romp in 2002.
Might I point out that the economy is doing better under Biden (so far) than it did under Reagan. You'd never know that from pretty much any media source, of course. Biden's a loser and Reagan was an economic miracle worker.
With a little encouragement, Republicans will get voters angry at Republicans. A significant fraction of low-info, marginal voters express a wish that politicians could get along with each other and do their jobs without acrimony. Democrats should a) play up the infrastructure bill, which was passed on bipartisan! votes, and b) badger every R candidate to take a stand on January 6 and the Big Lie, and call them wimps if they won’t. Trump has a fanatical cult following which are beyond reach, but other than that, he is unpopular - tie your opponent to him and his divisive rhetoric; or force your opponent to renounce the attempted coup, and he’ll be attacked by Trump.
And since you brought up Reagan, let me add this.
The CW on Reagan in many circles goes like this: a folksy, avuncular, and well-liked president who brought an end to stagflation, created a booming economy, and rode a wave of mass approval to a historic landslide reelection and eventual sainthood. (Oh, he single-handedly whipped the Russkies too, even after he left office.)
That charming fable is not actually the truth. His most popular achievement during his first term was not dying from an assassin's bullet. His next biggest spike in approval came following the Beirut attack of October 1983 that killed 241 American military personnel, when he went from 45% to 54% in the Gallup poll.
Much of that term was otherwise bleak, as he presided over the second dip of a double-dip recession, while falling from 68% to 35% in approval. He was at 43% for the midterms (same as Biden today). GOP lost 1 Senate seat and 26 House seats in '82. The landslide in '84 was largely determined by the turnaround in the economy engineered by Paul Volcker.
I've been seeing articles about whether Biden's presidency can be salvaged, as we are now in the 2nd or 3rd wave of a multi-wave pandemic. It may feel like it will never end but it will. The economy is still choppy but signs of a boom are there if you look. Democrats might not be saved in the midterms (nothing is certain), but odds are the next two years will look better as Biden heads toward reelection.
Save whatll? These articles are trash. Made by trash journalists losers. Concentration camps and torture is what they deserve.
I think the odds modestly favor a second Biden term, but apart from GOP elections nullification (a very real threat) two major differences between Reagan's first term and Biden's are:
1) Biden is getting extremely strong growth right now, early in his first term; all things equal, that nudges the odds against his enjoying similarly strong growth two years from now. Reagan experienced tepid growth in 1981 followed by freefall in 1982. The economy had nowhere to go but up. Not the case for Biden. Interest rates are likely to be drifting upwards for the foreseeable future, and that portends slower growth in 2023-2024. If Biden gets lucky, the brunt of any slowdown will occur late this year and early next year, clearing the path for stronger growth in 2024. But there are obviously no guarantees.
2) The incumbency advantage was much stronger in the 20th century. FDR (1936), Eisenhower (1956), LBJ (1964), Nixon (1972) and Reagan (1984) all won landslide reelections. Clinton, too, won pretty handily in 1996. Right now, in our 50/50 hyper-partisan environment, elections are much closer. Five of six presidential elections going back to 2000 have been quite close in terms of popular vote. So, this means you're never out of the ballgame: The 2024 Republican nominee is likely to start with a floor of something like 47% of the two party vote.
For Democrats running in swing states that have passed or threatened to pass popular-vote overriding laws, we need to quickly find out if that can be an effective issue for Democrats: “Republicans will throw out every vote, including YOUR vote, if they don’t get their way! That’s being a sore loser! It’s un-American!”
Yes-- I think you not only have to elicit and highlight crazy R responses, but you have to tell people loudly and often that the Rs are dangerously crazy. You can't just assume people are going to recognize on their own *that* they're dangerous to the republic, let alone *how* dangerous, unless you tell them consistently and constantly that they're dangerous. It's ugly and feels demeaning but you have to do what works.
The success of Republican state legislatures to restrict voting and the failure of Democrats at the national level to pass voting rights legislation due to Republican obstruction and Democratic corruption appears to be providing the impetus for making voters angry at Republicans and Democrats who support them. Poll restrictions in 2016 resulted in higher turnout in 2020 in some areas. That anger to mobilize can be exploited, but the problem for other Democrats is it exposes their fealty to big business and the war complex. If too much anger is generated, Democratic leaders could be ousted, too.
Nothing they did will restrict voting. Keep telling yourself moron.
The problem is not that the voters are ill- or mis-informed; the problem is that as a group they seem able to assess neither the quality of information at their disposal nor the validity of the arguments they are presented with.
This has nothing to do with intelligence or prejudice and everything to do with education, education, education. Let me say it again: Educational paradigms and goals as they are currently realized our woefully out of step with C 21 realities. This is the fundamental and much longer term problem that underpins all others when it comes to self-governance.
Anger is important and so is fear. People are motivated at the margins by being pissed at somebody, pissed about something, or afraid of somebody or something. Uncomfortable voters are motivated; comfortable voters won't necessarily want to bestir themselves. In a word, Ds need to take a page from Vandenberg's playbook here and scare hell out of the American people.
It's been said a ton of times but Ds also need to figure out how to prime the media more effectively. They can't necessarily control the storyline the way Rs inevitably do, but they do need to understand how information and stories get masticated inside the machine and at least try to set things up so it all emerges much closer to the way they need it.
As Josh Marshall so well puts it, the DC media are hard-wired for Rs. But the brainpower that gave us the Obama and Biden campaigns can surely figure out approaches to grooming the media when in office. Of course the Fox/OAN etc complex is beyond anything like that, but it's at least worth trying with the rest. Maybe even taking friendly issue with question-framing can work for them? I've only seen a few of them try it, tbh.
They need to do both-- anger/scare people about the Rs, and shape coverage of their governance.
The Reagan effect in 1982 is still a mystery. The economy was worse in Nov 1982 than 1980. Crime wave in those 2 years, grew worse. Yet, Republicans picked up a seat in the Senate.
Not every election is a wave and the Republicans have a stinker of a Senate map in 22.
The Reagan effect in 1982 is still a mystery. The economy was worse in Nov 1982 than 1980. Crime wave in those 2 years, grew worse. Yet, Republicans picked up a seat in the Senate.
No mystery. GOP understandably lost 26 House seats in '82. That election took place at the height of a brutal recession on Reagan's watch. And, despite a reasonably favorable Senate map, Republicans lost a seat on net; they didn't gain one.
One could imagine 2022 being similar for Democrats, with the exception that they're unlikely to lose "many" House seats given the relatively modest number of vulnerable seats (Dems lost ground in 2020, after all). A perfect scenario (within reason) for Democrats would be something like, powered by a drop in inflation and covid deaths, Democrats pick up two Senate seats on net and "only" lose four House seats.
In Kevin's previous post on this topic a couple of weeks ago he glossed over the issue of abortion says that it was a SCOTUS matter. Now it (still) is, but this summer it is possible, or even probable that Roe will be overturned. At this point abortion will become a state issue and a pressing one since a number of states have on their books pre-Roe anti-abortion laws. By September 1 I think every candidate at state and federal level will be asked repeatedly on their stance. What will the Dems say? How will they frame what the Republican candidates say? Many of the R's will be very extreme and can't back away. The R's have had the luxury courting the anti-abortion vote but never having to act on it because of Roe. If is overturned, it will be THE issue for many suburban voters.
Right, but your forgetting court neutrality issue. Many Democratscan say they support reducing court decisions and boy will Republicans lose some "crap". Then call for state referendums on what abortion laws you will have.
This was a large issue that caused the 1993 "militia movement" thing which was largely started by registered Democrats in rural areas. The party fractured and frankly never recovered.
More broadly, whatever issues get voters angry at R's, I suggest the D's pick no more than 3 and hammer away. Keep it simple. Some ideas:
-The 2 trillion dollars made by the top 0.002% since the pandemic started? Just keep hammering this one
-Abortion (see my comment above)? Stories of girls in Texas forced to bear their father's children after rape would be pretty effective. If the shoe was on the other foot a stay like that would now be leading on Fox every night.
-Corruption and money laundering allowed by R polices
-Republicans blindness to Russia under Trump which is about to become a war
Republicans are servants to the Chinese elites. I can give names.
Lets also remember that voting rights stuff is not big issues in swing states. Mainly because they don't see changes. A few black driven big metro areas simply do not make party. Blacks have low voting relevancy in NC,Penn,Ohio,Wisconsin,Iowa,Missouri. 90% is white voters. You can't run on NYC politics.
It’s important for Democrats themselves to make the case and not rely upon the media or the referees. And not balance their criticism with wistful thinking about bipartisan crap. It has to be done by Democrats (especially in the leadership), it has to be hard hitting, it has to be done consistently and relentlessly.
The reason why I think it has to be done by Democrats and has to be an attack on Republicans as a group is simple. When I was learning to practice law, I was taught that at least once during my opening statement I needed to stand directly in front of the defendant and point to him. This was called “bringing him into the case”. It’s important because if you don’t, it signals to the jury that you’re afraid or unwilling to confront him and yet you’re expecting the jurors to do something that you won’t (great example of this is in the movie Presumed Innocent).
If you aren’t demonstrably and sincerely angry at Republicans there’s really no way that any kind of halfhearted criticism is going to resonate with voters.
I completely agree. Policy is irrelevant. Bad policy outcomes matter a little… losing wars matter a little, but not too much. Thousands of US troops were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and no one really cared. Go figure.
I would love a different economic system with higher taxes on the rich and more care for the poor, sick, and elderly, but that’s not going to happen. so the democrats should stop promising stuff they won’t deliver. Message bills and votes are so dumb… how dumb are they? Pretty effing dumb!
The republicans are evil. They are the ones capable of setting up concentration camps and killing Americans. They tell us this every day. Why don’t we listen? And repeat their threats so there is no doubt.
Obamacare was the democrats best idea in a generation, and they got destroyed for it from 2010 onward. Yet many are still convinced it was worth it. It wasn’t. I like the policy but it was a political disaster which probably gave us Trump. The fact that John McCain would support repeal was a minor miracle.
Obamacare was the democrats best idea in a generation, and they got destroyed for it from 2010 onward. Yet many are still convinced it was worth it. It wasn’t.
What's the sense of winning elections if not to use the political power you gain? You're right that policy gains don't make much difference (in electoral outcomes) but again, why even contest elections if not to improve things?
I like the policy but it was a political disaster which probably gave us Trump.
Obamacare probably cost Democrats some seats in 2010, but Republicans would have found something different to run on had that issue not been available. They always do. Also, Republicans were reasonably heavy favorites to win in 2016 the moment Obama won in 2012: only once since WW2 (1988) has the out of power party failed to take back to White House after two terms. Throw in years of extremely tepid economic growth into the mix*, and it's kind of a miracle Hillary came as close to winning as she did (actually, the "miracle" is the low candidate quality of the GOP's nominee).
*Democrats' scaredy-cat refusal to go big on stimulus in 2009-2010 was a much bigger long term factor, I think, than the ACA: it guaranteed years of suboptimal growth.
Liberals need to learn to lie. To fabricate. To exaggerate.
I figure that there are three very unequal and broad classifications of voters. First, are the public duty voters. They exercise their franchise because they think it is their public duty to do so. They are, by far, the smallest group. Next up are the "tribal" voters, those who mostly cast their vote for a particular party and it would take a lot from a particular candidate to get them to change. Even so-called independent voters tend to lean very heavily towards one party or the other and could be counted on to vote for the candidates from that party without some major (usually non political) reason to change their vote (who would you rather have a beer with?). The final group are the dissatisfied voters, by far the largest group. Most of these people cannot be counted on to vote in most elections because they only vote when they are scared or angry (preferably both) and driven to the polls by the party that identifies a cause for their dissatisfaction and points to some scapegoat to blame. The next step for a party is to brand the other party's candidates as the allies of the designated scapegoat. Most elections, at least on the statewide and national levels, are won by getting out the vote of an angry and fearful electorate who, if they weren't angry and afraid wouldn't bother to vote. Donald Trump won the second highest number of popular votes cast for POTUS in history and only lost because he was running against the guy who won the highest number of popular votes cast for POTUS in history. The jump of almost 25 million more votes cast in 2020 over 2016 is not accounted for by population increase. Lots of people were pissed at the way liberals treated Donald Trump and were convinced that if Democrats took over the government would come after their guns and institute mandated abortions. They were also angry that Blacks, Hispanics and Immigrants were responsible for making their lives miserable and Donald Trump made it OK for them to express their anger. Trump's problem was, in courting the anti immigrant, misogynist, racist, anti abortion and anti LGBTQ voters by amplifying their hate, he angered an even greater voting group, those who are angered by the hate and anger openly expressed by all the Trump voters. All the Democrats can do at this point for the upcoming midterms is to get as many voters angry and afraid of the Republican party as possible. Be Afraid, Get Angry - VOTE!!
I figure that there are three very unequal and broad classifications of voters. First, are the public duty voters. They exercise their franchise because they think it is their public duty to do so. They are the ones who actually pay attention to policy and read position papers. They are, by far, the smallest group. Next up are the "tribal" voters, those who mostly cast their vote for a particular party and it would take a lot from a particular candidate to get them to change. Even so-called independent voters tend to lean very heavily towards one party or the other and could be counted on to vote for the candidates from that party without some major (usually non political) reason to change their vote (who would you rather have a beer with?). The final group are the dissatisfied voters, by far the largest group. Most of these people cannot be counted on to vote in most elections because they only vote when they are scared or angry (preferably both) and driven to the polls by the party that identifies a cause for their dissatisfaction and points to some scapegoat to blame. The next step for a party is to brand the other party's candidates as the allies of the designated scapegoat. Most elections, at least on the statewide and national levels, are won by getting out the vote of an angry and fearful electorate who, if they weren't angry and afraid wouldn't bother to vote. Donald Trump won the second highest number of popular votes cast for POTUS in history and only lost because he was running against the guy who won the highest number of popular votes cast for POTUS in history. The jump of almost 25 million more votes cast in 2020 over 2016 is not accounted for by population increase. Lots of people were pissed at the way liberals treated Donald Trump and were convinced that if Democrats took over the government would come after their guns and institute mandated abortions. They were also angry that Blacks, Hispanics and Immigrants were responsible for making their lives miserable and Donald Trump made it OK for them to express their anger. Trump's problem was, in courting the anti immigrant, misogynist, racist, anti abortion and anti LGBTQ voters by amplifying their hate, he angered an even greater voting group, those who are angered by the hate and anger openly expressed by all the Trump voters. All the Democrats can do at this point for the upcoming midterms is to get as many voters angry and afraid of the Republican party as possible. Be Afraid, Get Angry - VOTE!!