https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...g0Z?li=BBorjTa
                                     
                                                                                                         
                             Biden looks screwed even if he wins             
                                     
   
      
      
      
      
                
         
                               
     
                                      This is not the outcome Democrats expected.
    Despite many bold predictions of a rout in which Democrats gained (or  re-gained) Trumpian red territory of 2016, as of early Wednesday only  one state — Arizona — had flipped from red to blue. Six states remain  outstanding: Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and  Pennsylvania.
   
 Assuming North Carolina and Georgia have slipped away from Biden —  Georgia is not out of reach for him — and that Nevada remains blue, the  best-case scenario for the former vice president is a 290-electoral vote  victory. That’s more than George W. Bush achieved in his two successful  campaigns (271 in 2000 and 286 in 2004), but fewer than Barack Obama  (365 in 2008 and 332 in 2012) and Donald Trump (304 in 2016).
A  win, of course, is a win. But if Biden is victorious, it will be under  radically curtailed circumstances from what Democrats had assumed. 
There  are few hints in the 2020 results of a realignment akin to what Ronald  Reagan achieved when he made Jimmy Carter a one-term president in 1980  and ushered in the era of modern conservatism. There is no sense that  Biden has reformed and re-invented the Democratic Party to be more  competitive the way Bill Clinton did in 1992, when he defeated George  H.W. Bush. There aren’t yet hints that Biden has assembled a new  coalition the way that Obama did in 2008. 
Biden lost ground with  Black voters and Latinos, though he gained some ground with white  voters. Realignments are generally built around concrete ideas and  specific policy platforms. But this campaign was always a referendum on  Trump, rather than an affirmative endorsement of Biden and his agenda.  That dynamic already cut against Biden claiming a strong positive  mandate. He needed a crushing rejection of Trump to strengthen his case.
 
 
       
             
   
 
     
       
  
 
    
He also needed the Senate. 
But Democrats may fail to  realize widespread predictions of re-taking the chamber. That would mean  whoever prevails in the presidential race, Mitch McConnell might remain  in charge of the upper chamber, retaining his role as arguably the most  consequential politician in Washington. In that case Biden would be the  first president in 32 years to come into office without control of  Congress, another dynamic that would weaken claims of a mandate. 
The  Democrats’ anti-filibuster movement and its interest in expanding the  Supreme Court and the Senate, or any other process reforms to maximize a  new Democratic president’s power and influence, would be placed on  pause. A President Biden’s agenda would be defined by his ability to win  over the entire Senate Democratic caucus, from Bernie Sanders to Joe  Manchin, and then as many as 10 Republicans. Ultimately, Biden would  have to deal with McConnell, who would undoubtedly reprise the role he  played in the Obama era when he had no incentive to help Obama rack up  legislative achievements. 
Final results that fall short of a  massive rejection of Trump, as seems likely, would fail to trigger the  repudiation of Trumpism in the Republican Party that many Democrats —  and a minority of Republicans — had hoped for. As John Harris 
argues,  whatever the final numbers, Trump’s appeal to half the country has  proven to be durable. Even a narrow Biden victory would generate a  larger debate about Trump’s harm to Republicans, but the full-scale  de-Trumpification of the GOP required a landslide. 
To be sure,  presidents who have won narrow victories have been able to turn them  into consequential presidencies. Bill Clinton, a popular vote plurality  victor, passed much of his first term agenda and comfortably won  reelection. Circumstances can always intervene. George W. Bush, the  lowest electoral vote winner in modern history, vastly expanded  executive branch powers after 9/11 on his way to reelection. 
But  this is not the scenario many Democrats hoped and prepared for. They  wanted a landslide that ended before midnight on Election Day, one that  unambiguously crushed Trump and Trumpism, swept in a Democratic Senate,  and showed a large majority for the Biden agenda. 
Some of these  goals could become more real as the final numbers post. But instead, at  least for now, Democrats have an unsettled outcome, a real possibility  of a second Trump term, and in that vacuum of uncertainty a president  who immediately began sowing doubts about the final results, in a speech  in the East Room at 2:30 a.m., and making anti-democratic threats to  disenfranchise Americans. 
In fairness, a lot of Biden advisers  tried to tamp down expectations. A senior Biden adviser told me last  week that the “path of least resistance” for a Biden victory was through  Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the single electoral vote from  Nebraska-2, a combination that wouldn’t require North Carolina, Georgia,  Florida, or even Pennsylvania. It would be just enough for 270  electoral votes. 
On Wednesday morning that appeared to be one of  the more likely paths for Biden to become president: a bare victory, but  victory nonetheless.
This from a DPST rag sums things up well.