NOPE! Biden would've done WAY worse than Harris, swapping him out with Harris arguably saved the democratic party

 So apparently, its leaking out that Biden's internal polling had Trump getting over 400 electoral votes.

O_O....

....WHAT?!

The funny thing is, I can simulate maps like this if I take Biden's data and give us an R+9 scenario. As a matter of fact, here's that map.

 Not only is this a Biden R+9 scenario, outside of the margin of error, but Biden's map is already a Harris R+4 scenario. So this is R+13 for Harris, and given the results, that roughly lines up. I'd give Washington back to the democrats, but otherwise, yeah, losing NJ? Check. Losing IL? Check. Losing NY? Check. 

That's how you get over 400 electoral votes as Trump.

Like...my Harris maps don't even go this far.

Like here's the Harris R+8 scenario. I dont even have NY, NJ, or IL as swing states. They were assumed safe. I mean, statistically, my projection tops out at 173-365 Trump. And that's the 99.7th percentile R+12 map. 

That's how insane this was.

But yeah, those maps I had where polling data literally had NJ, NY, and IL as swing states? Totally real. That was actually happening. And the Biden internal polling was telling them it was even worse.

This, right here, is why they swapped out Biden. 

And the dude didn't want to fricking pull out! 

Like, seriously, you know it has to be bad when the party starts turning on the president given what a cultish echo chamber the democratic party is. This is how bad it was. This is why the party turned on Biden and forced him out. This is what THEY were looking at. 

Now, some people are already turning on Harris, and saying that Harris wasn't the right candidate for the job and if we had someone else, we would've done better.

Um...if this is the deep dark put we just crawled out of by replacing Biden, Harris did...about as good as any establishment democrat could do. This election cycle was against us. I could tell this was like a Jimmy Carter in 1980 moment. I know my history. And if he stayed in, it would've been Carter vs Reagan all over again. 

Instead, we blunted this to a normal, 2016 like loss. Rough approximation, Harris R+2.5 again.

She staunched the bleeding, she made lost the swing states, but we still held on. While this is still a devastating defeat, at least we didn't lose the country by Reagan margins. It's possible to come back from that.

If anything, I think Harris's big problem was that she was too similar to Biden, and playing it too safe and trying the cringey new dem centrist strategy. It didnt resonate. People want simple answers to their problem, and if Harris was the wrong person on anything, it's being Biden's literal VP, because it kinda dug us into the hole of "well if youre in office already, why arent you doing any of this already?", which is...a valid question. At least for your typical voter with typical voter intelligence, who doesn't understand the complex inner workings of the economy and the government. 

Would another candidate have been better in THAT regard? Yeah, less distance from Biden, BUT AT THE SAME TIME....is another new dem what we really needed in this moment? I still think what drove our loss is primarily a lack of turnout. And people wouldnt be enthused by say Gavin newsom or Gretchen Whitmer either.

The fact is, it's as I lamented earlier this year. The democratic party killed its populist progressives trying to make the party better, all the 2028 front runners so far are the same old boring candidates with boring policies that no one actually wants, and we're screwed. 

In 2028, I hope we come out of this with a populist...if democracy survives Trump. If the dems run a third way centrist dem again, we might win 2028, but then it'll be back to be pounded in 2032. And the parties will realign even more strongly against us.

Forget this southern suburban strategy by dems. This is a failure. We're at risk of losing our safe states, while the GOP is digging in even further.