Democrats are realizing they must become more moderate(economist.com)
economist.com
Democrats are realizing they must become more moderate
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2022/07/14/democrats-in-america-are-realising-they-must-moderate-or-die
90 comments
https://archive.ph/Ewax6
A liberal party is impossible in the US political system at the moment. The rural areas are strongly advantaged by design, and have a strong conservative lean.
Unsurprisingly, the Democrats are already basically a moderate party.
Unsurprisingly, the Democrats are already basically a moderate party.
Yes, democrats span center-left to center-right. If one is looking for a "centrist" or "moderate" political party in the US, it is the democratic party.
This is pure BS. The self-appointed progessives/wokes are not moderate or centrist in any way, but they have huge influence over Democrats' policy. And they will be responsible for the Democrats' losses in the following years.
One's "advantaged by design" is another's "what you want doesn't work here".
Different ways for different slices of life. Who'd'a thunk it?
Different ways for different slices of life. Who'd'a thunk it?
No. They deliberately set up the constitution to favor the less populous states, and state constitutions largely did the same.
If you actually poll people on individual issues, rural people often agree with the Democrats. The parties aren't particularly representative of people's underlying opinions.
If you actually poll people on individual issues, rural people often agree with the Democrats. The parties aren't particularly representative of people's underlying opinions.
The problem is with those polling questions that support Democratic Party issues is they are generally describing significantly softer positions than the democrats actual positions. Abortion is a good example. A majority of people when polled, will agree with abortion access being important. However, that support falls apart if you caveat the question “to provide access beyond the age of fetal viability and possibly all the way up to birth”. This is the Democratic Party’s actual position. Prior to viability, there might be majority support, but post viability and up to birth people are about 75-90% against.
I never ask for sources but 75-90%? This doesn’t seem likely short of cherry picking.
There are a lot of ways to slice those statistics. I’m guessing they got theirs from “Most Americans open to some restrictions on abortion” in the Pew data. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abo...
The other issue is that most Americans also don’t know anything about abortion. They have opinions about things they know nothing about - when confronted and informed they turn out to be even more left leaning than initially thought. They think people abort fetuses at 8 months because they’re feeling frisky - like women suddenly have regrets after carrying something in them after six months and only decide then to abort.
Most people in the USA have brain rot and are incredibly uninformed and stupid.
Most people in the USA have brain rot and are incredibly uninformed and stupid.
> They think people abort fetuses at 8 months because they’re feeling frisky - like women suddenly have regrets after carrying something in them after six months and only decide then to abort.
No, I don’t think that is the case, its not that people believe that it is common, the issue is that the Democratic Party has stated that they want women to have that ability to make that choice all the way to birth. That position is a disconnect with the electorate. Majority of the populace wants elective choice up to 3 months, then it falls off dramatically.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
No, I don’t think that is the case, its not that people believe that it is common, the issue is that the Democratic Party has stated that they want women to have that ability to make that choice all the way to birth. That position is a disconnect with the electorate. Majority of the populace wants elective choice up to 3 months, then it falls off dramatically.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Again - this is because the public thinks abortion is a finicky woman choice being dramatic in the final moments. They’re uninformed and don’t know anything about abortion.
It’s like asking the public about monetary policy - they have opinions but they’re all shaped by the media and the fact that they know nothing about monetary policy to begin with. Most Americans really know nothing but will have opinions anyway.
This is the issue I’m talking about. When they are informed - their opinions change dramatically.
It’s like asking the public about monetary policy - they have opinions but they’re all shaped by the media and the fact that they know nothing about monetary policy to begin with. Most Americans really know nothing but will have opinions anyway.
This is the issue I’m talking about. When they are informed - their opinions change dramatically.
> Again. - this is because the public thinks abortion is a finicky woman choice being dramatic in the final moments
Well that might be your opinion, but in my experience everyone I know that sit on the pro-life side of this debate seem to have concern for the fetus driving their opinion, more than “finicky woman choice being dramatic in the final moments” being the driver. I think that is why polling dramatically starts shifting at the point within the pregnancy where the fetus starts developing into the recognizable human form.
It’s easy to disconnect the humanity from a fetus when it’s physical characteristics are no different from other animals. However, once it becomes recognizably human, it makes it more difficult for people to be advocates of abortion choice.
The democrats don’t want to acknowledge this moral difficulty. They even try to avoid words like “baby”, “person”, and “child”. Recently was some news around President Biden’s slip of the tongue on the topic.
https://twitter.com/DanODonnellShow/status/15215217089261854...
Well that might be your opinion, but in my experience everyone I know that sit on the pro-life side of this debate seem to have concern for the fetus driving their opinion, more than “finicky woman choice being dramatic in the final moments” being the driver. I think that is why polling dramatically starts shifting at the point within the pregnancy where the fetus starts developing into the recognizable human form.
It’s easy to disconnect the humanity from a fetus when it’s physical characteristics are no different from other animals. However, once it becomes recognizably human, it makes it more difficult for people to be advocates of abortion choice.
The democrats don’t want to acknowledge this moral difficulty. They even try to avoid words like “baby”, “person”, and “child”. Recently was some news around President Biden’s slip of the tongue on the topic.
https://twitter.com/DanODonnellShow/status/15215217089261854...
That's probably partly true since the debate over late-term elective abortion does bring in the motivations of the mothers as potential qualifiers, but that is only a subset of the debate and issues.
This link below. Look at the statistics related to this question:
Thinking more generally, do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy.
Then compare those stats to this question:
With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?
A majority identify as pro-choice, but apparently do not believe that choice should extend past the 3 months of pregnancy.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Thinking more generally, do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy.
Then compare those stats to this question:
With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?
A majority identify as pro-choice, but apparently do not believe that choice should extend past the 3 months of pregnancy.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
They are choosing to peg the article to the SF recall, where there were competency issues as well as political valence. Even more relevant are the elections in the East Bay that returned progressive candidates, and the mayoral election in LA where the business oriented faux Democrat lost heavily to Karen Bass, who is significantly to his left.
This will get flagged to death. But in the meantime, surveys have shown that the right and left have shifted further from the center over the last 20 years. The left has had a much more dramatic swing than the right. I think the left could easily adopt a few of the issues that the right is currently championing and take full control of the government.
On the morning after the insurrection around 45% of Republicans were supportive of the violent attempt to overthrow our government. We have courts and politicians not only wanting to kill abortion rights in states they control but prevent people from crossing state lines to get abortions and removing opposing exceptions for rape or even the life of the mother. Secession is a fairly mainstream position among republicans, held by 2/3 of southern republicans. 4 in 10 support violence to put the other side down or achieve independence.
A conservative court has found that there is no right to privacy in the constitution and affirmed that stare decisis is dead while opining that the court went too far not only in affirming abortion rights but in protecting gay and even interracial marriage laws, and even gay sex. This means that basically any prior case that was decided in a way that deviates from present conservative thinking is on the menu. Before it was merely abhorrent that a minority among the supreme court believes Texas has a right to criminalize gay sex in Lawrence v Texas. Now they can if they choose merely redo that one.
So that's whats going on with the red team now please do explicate how the left has undergone a more radical swing. I don't see an idea more radical than tax the rich and give everyone health care with more than single digit support.
A conservative court has found that there is no right to privacy in the constitution and affirmed that stare decisis is dead while opining that the court went too far not only in affirming abortion rights but in protecting gay and even interracial marriage laws, and even gay sex. This means that basically any prior case that was decided in a way that deviates from present conservative thinking is on the menu. Before it was merely abhorrent that a minority among the supreme court believes Texas has a right to criminalize gay sex in Lawrence v Texas. Now they can if they choose merely redo that one.
So that's whats going on with the red team now please do explicate how the left has undergone a more radical swing. I don't see an idea more radical than tax the rich and give everyone health care with more than single digit support.
You're right, but taken literally, the parent is describing a relative measure (the size of a swing), and one could make an argument that, on a ten point extremity scale, Republicans have swung from 7 to 9 and Democrats have swung from 2 to 6 (to choose arbitrary numbers).
It's challenging to assign numbers to quantities that aren't numeric in nature and everyone could pick different weights and methods but lets be realistic.
If you compare a Democrat from 40 years ago to one today you would see a 20% uptick in support for gay rights and a substantial uptick in the desire to spend tax money on healthcare, and a smaller uptick in support to raise taxes to support the former.
If you compare a republican from the same era you would find 10% of them now want a white supremacist christian ethnostate and 40% of them are supportive of the idea of killing their wrong thinking neighbors in order to live in Republican Town and even more would gladly part ways with the US of A if they could do it at the ballot box.
It may be challenging to assign weights to these dissimilar changes in positions but one of them is pretty clearly more extreme than the other.
If you compare a Democrat from 40 years ago to one today you would see a 20% uptick in support for gay rights and a substantial uptick in the desire to spend tax money on healthcare, and a smaller uptick in support to raise taxes to support the former.
If you compare a republican from the same era you would find 10% of them now want a white supremacist christian ethnostate and 40% of them are supportive of the idea of killing their wrong thinking neighbors in order to live in Republican Town and even more would gladly part ways with the US of A if they could do it at the ballot box.
It may be challenging to assign weights to these dissimilar changes in positions but one of them is pretty clearly more extreme than the other.
Neither side does a particularly good job of empathizing with the other - I say that as a socially moderate, economically progressive democrat.
There were plenty of anti-abortion democrats 40 years ago, though you’d hardly find many now. Same with anti-immigration democrats; etc etc. It seems like both parties have polarized quite a bit on the issues and moderates got left without a voice in either one.
There were plenty of anti-abortion democrats 40 years ago, though you’d hardly find many now. Same with anti-immigration democrats; etc etc. It seems like both parties have polarized quite a bit on the issues and moderates got left without a voice in either one.
> There were plenty of anti-abortion democrats 40 years ago,
Yes, during the historical aberration of the long 1930s-1990s realignment, on even the most salient political issues polarizing the public, neither major party was particularly coherent.
That's...not a normal, stable, or desirable condition.
Yes, during the historical aberration of the long 1930s-1990s realignment, on even the most salient political issues polarizing the public, neither major party was particularly coherent.
That's...not a normal, stable, or desirable condition.
Strange that you say it wasn’t desirable seeing that congress from 1930-1990 was more effective at legislating than they are today - precisely because the parties were less polarized.
I don’t think party purity tests are a net good for our republic.
I don’t think party purity tests are a net good for our republic.
> 40% of them are supportive of the idea of killing their wrong thinking neighbors in order to live in Republican Town
This sounds completely insane. Can you point to a source that actually backs this up?
This sounds completely insane. Can you point to a source that actually backs this up?
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/11/966498544/a-scary-survey-find...
"39% of Republicans, agreed that "if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions.""
"two out of three Republicans saying President Biden was not legitimately elected"
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2022/06/01/poll-finds-support...
"70% of Republicans believe in the great replacement theory"
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-02-24/a-q...
"A Quarter of Republicans Believe Central Views of QAnon Conspiracy Movement"
Both sides have a substantial portion that believes that there could be a need for violence. Unfortunately the Republican side believes this because they think liberals are replacing them with brown people, qanon, and election lies.
Meanwhile liberals like myself believe it because we have relatives who are talking about cleaning their guns to make ready to kill Democrats. Personally I have directly followed alt-right communication on publicly available social media platforms including gab and parler and the videos they share. It's not really a secret that the crazies want to whack us.
"39% of Republicans, agreed that "if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions.""
"two out of three Republicans saying President Biden was not legitimately elected"
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2022/06/01/poll-finds-support...
"70% of Republicans believe in the great replacement theory"
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-02-24/a-q...
"A Quarter of Republicans Believe Central Views of QAnon Conspiracy Movement"
Both sides have a substantial portion that believes that there could be a need for violence. Unfortunately the Republican side believes this because they think liberals are replacing them with brown people, qanon, and election lies.
Meanwhile liberals like myself believe it because we have relatives who are talking about cleaning their guns to make ready to kill Democrats. Personally I have directly followed alt-right communication on publicly available social media platforms including gab and parler and the videos they share. It's not really a secret that the crazies want to whack us.
"the idea of killing their wrong thinking neighbors in order to live in Republican Town" is not even close to the same thing as "if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions."
They believe they will need to protect America from imaginary election fraud, imported brown people, qanon conspiracy theories. The motivation for violence is incredibly important.
I’m a left leaning libertarian in a deep red state with many many friends and neighbors who are conservative, none of them are talking about keeping their guns clean “to kill democrats”. They do keep their guns clean because they want a reliable weapon that is safe to operate. It’s pointless otherwise.
Also, Of all the people I know, one person fell into the QAnon conspiracy hole, but promptly climbed out. I just don’t buy all of this baloney that Republicans are huge extremists now. It doesn’t track with my experience and reality at all.
Also, Of all the people I know, one person fell into the QAnon conspiracy hole, but promptly climbed out. I just don’t buy all of this baloney that Republicans are huge extremists now. It doesn’t track with my experience and reality at all.
I don't decide the average disposition of hundreds of millions of people by polling my social circle because I don't associate with a representative sample of the population by design I prefer to deal with more reasonable people.
A VERY substantial minority on the order of 1/4 of those who self identify as Republicans believe in the core tenets of the qanon conspiracy and most think the election was stolen. These are facts that you cannot reasonable refute by telling me you a reasonable fellow associate with other reasonable people.
A VERY substantial minority on the order of 1/4 of those who self identify as Republicans believe in the core tenets of the qanon conspiracy and most think the election was stolen. These are facts that you cannot reasonable refute by telling me you a reasonable fellow associate with other reasonable people.
You claim facts. Back them up. I see a lot of these kind of comments claiming facts, but rarely see any surveys, studies, or statistics to back them up.
You may believe that a core tenant of qanon is someone believing leftist politicians are “evil”, and you might get 25% of republicans agree with that. Does that mean all of that 25% who believe leftists are evil also believe that leftist politicians are reptilian shapeshifting pedophiles that eat baby brains on sundays in a pizza restaurant basement?
Doubtful.
You may believe that a core tenant of qanon is someone believing leftist politicians are “evil”, and you might get 25% of republicans agree with that. Does that mean all of that 25% who believe leftists are evil also believe that leftist politicians are reptilian shapeshifting pedophiles that eat baby brains on sundays in a pizza restaurant basement?
Doubtful.
I provided the sources in previously in the thread here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32129721
To address more directly the point you referenced directly.
The study is discussed here
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-02-24/a-q...
But if you want to skip the analysis and go to the meat of it, it's here.
https://www.prri.org/research/the-persistence-of-qanon-in-th...
16% of Republicans completely or mostly agree the government media and financial worlds are controlled by a global network of Satan worshiping pedos who run a global sex trafficking operation
22% completely or mostly agree that a storm is coming that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders.
18% completely or mostly agree that things are so far off track that American patriots may need to use violence to save our country.
From the second source
> To assess overall belief in QAnon, PRRI created a composite measure from these three questions and identified the following three groups:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32129721
To address more directly the point you referenced directly.
The study is discussed here
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-02-24/a-q...
But if you want to skip the analysis and go to the meat of it, it's here.
https://www.prri.org/research/the-persistence-of-qanon-in-th...
16% of Republicans completely or mostly agree the government media and financial worlds are controlled by a global network of Satan worshiping pedos who run a global sex trafficking operation
22% completely or mostly agree that a storm is coming that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders.
18% completely or mostly agree that things are so far off track that American patriots may need to use violence to save our country.
From the second source
> To assess overall belief in QAnon, PRRI created a composite measure from these three questions and identified the following three groups:
QAnon believers: Respondents who completely or mostly agreed with these statements.
QAnon doubters: Respondents who mostly disagreed with these statements.
QAnon rejecters: Respondents who completely disagreed with all three statements.
You put too much stock in polls. The average (or even intelligent) person does not have time for polls. Trusting these numbers is to believe in FUD.
There is no reason to accept your casual dismissal of polling or specific polls without proof or even argument of any sort based on the fact that you said so. You put too much stock in your gut. So much so that you are able to casually dismiss actual facts because they don't agree with your gut.
They are right. No one has time for polls, and of those who do, I question that their willingness to answer reflects on them being representative.
Tell me, have you been polled?
If so, have you given feedback beyond a yes or no to a misleadingly framed question?
Tell me, have you been polled?
If so, have you given feedback beyond a yes or no to a misleadingly framed question?
You like the prior poster still haven't provided any evidence for the wholesale rejection of polling as meaningful so I feel no need to disprove arguments you have declined to provide.
Asking if I have gotten a poll is a non sequitur. It's not a meaningful question so I see no reason to answer. The plural of anecdote isn't data.
Asking if I have gotten a poll is a non sequitur. It's not a meaningful question so I see no reason to answer. The plural of anecdote isn't data.
You're the one sealioning. My question was simple.
Have you been polled?
Have you not?
I am tired of people hiding behind pollsters imagined legitimacy, particularly when we have the technology today to literally ask everyone what they think.
And yet... Never do I seem to run into anyone who responded to one of these polls.
Have you?
Easy answer. Yes or no.
Have you been polled?
Have you not?
I am tired of people hiding behind pollsters imagined legitimacy, particularly when we have the technology today to literally ask everyone what they think.
And yet... Never do I seem to run into anyone who responded to one of these polls.
Have you?
Easy answer. Yes or no.
For the record Websters defines Sealioning thus
Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.
Your question "Have you been polled?" Is an example of sealioning. You don't actually want to know if I have been polled. You don't think any possible answer would illuminate the discussion. You don't intend to make any actually arguments to the validity of polling other than a casual dismissal. You have no intention on engaging in any actually substantial debate or discussion.
I started this subthread with substantial points with sources. Answering a manipulative insincere question with a reason why the question made no difference isn't itself sealioning.
Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.
Your question "Have you been polled?" Is an example of sealioning. You don't actually want to know if I have been polled. You don't think any possible answer would illuminate the discussion. You don't intend to make any actually arguments to the validity of polling other than a casual dismissal. You have no intention on engaging in any actually substantial debate or discussion.
I started this subthread with substantial points with sources. Answering a manipulative insincere question with a reason why the question made no difference isn't itself sealioning.
It costs money and time to ask literally everyone what they think. If you invested 5 minutes per person and paid $20 an hour including equipment cost it would cost you 563 million dollars per poll.
Also you would still get less than 100% response rate even on your initial poll. After you got in the habit of burning billions of dollars to harass literally every citizen in the US constantly you would find your sample size dropping precipitously as people found ways to block your calls.
To get a statistically valid sample of 338M people you need as little as a few thousand respondents depending on desired accuracy. It makes sense therefore that the chance of a single poll actually calling you personally is very low. In fact 100 polls reaching 100,000 distinct individuals still has only 1 in 3000 chance of someone personally calling you. Small wonder if your phone isn't ringing off the hook.
Despite dodging those and every sort of automated asshole calling my phone and being on the do not call registry I have still received a call. The answer is yes. This still proves nothing. I haven't refuted your position by saying yes as I'm sure you will now agree.
Also you would still get less than 100% response rate even on your initial poll. After you got in the habit of burning billions of dollars to harass literally every citizen in the US constantly you would find your sample size dropping precipitously as people found ways to block your calls.
To get a statistically valid sample of 338M people you need as little as a few thousand respondents depending on desired accuracy. It makes sense therefore that the chance of a single poll actually calling you personally is very low. In fact 100 polls reaching 100,000 distinct individuals still has only 1 in 3000 chance of someone personally calling you. Small wonder if your phone isn't ringing off the hook.
Despite dodging those and every sort of automated asshole calling my phone and being on the do not call registry I have still received a call. The answer is yes. This still proves nothing. I haven't refuted your position by saying yes as I'm sure you will now agree.
The point I'm slowly meandering towards, is it is a very different thing to cold call everyone and get an off the cuff answer than to really get people into a position to recognize the enormity of the answer they are giving.
Legislation is literally the parcelling up and selling off of the liberties of everyone around you. This is not a task that should be undertaken haphazardly. To really do it, you should be grappling with questions of "Does this policy make sense across the board, rather than localized to where I am?"
Polls never drill into that level of detail. Ever. At best they provide a passing narrative confirmation that makes a nice sound byte. Case and point:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32141104
If you're sitting here, telling me it's too much work to talk to everyone to actually get a representative sample, then don't come back and try to justify the legitimacy of one policy over another based on the fact that a bunch of people with nothing better to do than respond to cold called political polls (who may or may not even be voters) is truly representative of the will of the people. I'm sorry. When it comes to writing off liberties, I'm in the school of thought that the extra work is necessary, because this isn't something that should be streamlined, especially given there is precious little track record of any streamlining be applied to rectify bad law..
I write my Congressional representatives on issues that weigh heavily on my conscience. Multiple times if I don't feel the point is getting across enough. I've got a couple more letters to get written in light of current events, in fact.
Your polls, don't reflect that. Or for that matter, any of the streams of communication that actually end up in a Representative or Senator's mailbox, which to be quite frank, are far more indicative of what the People want, than any Call Center with a script is ever going to get. I don't even care if the Rep/Senator is of the opposing political party than the issue I'm concerned with. Reigning in extreme right/leftness can only happen under the pressure of reminding said individual they are still representing a hefty constituency that differs on platform, and if they like that seat, they'd best pay attention.
Polls are not grounds for policy.
Legislation is literally the parcelling up and selling off of the liberties of everyone around you. This is not a task that should be undertaken haphazardly. To really do it, you should be grappling with questions of "Does this policy make sense across the board, rather than localized to where I am?"
Polls never drill into that level of detail. Ever. At best they provide a passing narrative confirmation that makes a nice sound byte. Case and point:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32141104
If you're sitting here, telling me it's too much work to talk to everyone to actually get a representative sample, then don't come back and try to justify the legitimacy of one policy over another based on the fact that a bunch of people with nothing better to do than respond to cold called political polls (who may or may not even be voters) is truly representative of the will of the people. I'm sorry. When it comes to writing off liberties, I'm in the school of thought that the extra work is necessary, because this isn't something that should be streamlined, especially given there is precious little track record of any streamlining be applied to rectify bad law..
I write my Congressional representatives on issues that weigh heavily on my conscience. Multiple times if I don't feel the point is getting across enough. I've got a couple more letters to get written in light of current events, in fact.
Your polls, don't reflect that. Or for that matter, any of the streams of communication that actually end up in a Representative or Senator's mailbox, which to be quite frank, are far more indicative of what the People want, than any Call Center with a script is ever going to get. I don't even care if the Rep/Senator is of the opposing political party than the issue I'm concerned with. Reigning in extreme right/leftness can only happen under the pressure of reminding said individual they are still representing a hefty constituency that differs on platform, and if they like that seat, they'd best pay attention.
Polls are not grounds for policy.
Please be respectful of my time by reading what I write and not trying to change what you actually said.
You said
>--------------------------------------------
particularly when we have the technology today to literally ask everyone what they think.
>--------------------------------------------
In turn I said
>--------------------------------------------
To get a statistically valid sample of 338M people you need as little as a few thousand respondents depending on desired accuracy.
>--------------------------------------------
Now you say
>--------------------------------------------
If you're sitting here, telling me it's too much work to talk to everyone to actually get a representative sample
>--------------------------------------------
You know what I said and you knew what I said.
The broader context is the parent poster, rather than you, attempted to dismiss legitimate sources by asserting without evidence that polls are worthless.
He made the statement thus
>--------------------------------------------
You put too much stock in polls. The average (or even intelligent) person does not have time for polls. Trusting these numbers is to believe in FUD.
>--------------------------------------------
To which you answered
>--------------------------------------------
They are right...
>--------------------------------------------
They aren't right and you aren't right. Polling is an imperfect tool. Changing how you phrase a question can change the answer. Getting a representative sample is an imperfect science. This is good cause to ask how it was used vs misused lest a manipulative author come to the preordained conclusion. It is not however good cause to dismiss the entire notion of polling and ask no-one nor that we somehow as you said ask "literally everyone". Nor is it reasonable to determine what the people want by looking at the contents of your legislators mailbox.
They will no doubt be full of letters from a passionate self selected minority rather than representing in any way shape or form a representative sample.
You can say polls aren't grounds for policy but they are a damn fine tool to find out on average what the potentially millions of constituents think as opposed to the 12 people that wrote letters and if you want a substantial portion of those millions to vote for you then you had better at least understand what they think even if you intend to defy them because you know better.
You said
>--------------------------------------------
particularly when we have the technology today to literally ask everyone what they think.
>--------------------------------------------
In turn I said
>--------------------------------------------
To get a statistically valid sample of 338M people you need as little as a few thousand respondents depending on desired accuracy.
>--------------------------------------------
Now you say
>--------------------------------------------
If you're sitting here, telling me it's too much work to talk to everyone to actually get a representative sample
>--------------------------------------------
You know what I said and you knew what I said.
The broader context is the parent poster, rather than you, attempted to dismiss legitimate sources by asserting without evidence that polls are worthless.
He made the statement thus
>--------------------------------------------
You put too much stock in polls. The average (or even intelligent) person does not have time for polls. Trusting these numbers is to believe in FUD.
>--------------------------------------------
To which you answered
>--------------------------------------------
They are right...
>--------------------------------------------
They aren't right and you aren't right. Polling is an imperfect tool. Changing how you phrase a question can change the answer. Getting a representative sample is an imperfect science. This is good cause to ask how it was used vs misused lest a manipulative author come to the preordained conclusion. It is not however good cause to dismiss the entire notion of polling and ask no-one nor that we somehow as you said ask "literally everyone". Nor is it reasonable to determine what the people want by looking at the contents of your legislators mailbox.
They will no doubt be full of letters from a passionate self selected minority rather than representing in any way shape or form a representative sample.
You can say polls aren't grounds for policy but they are a damn fine tool to find out on average what the potentially millions of constituents think as opposed to the 12 people that wrote letters and if you want a substantial portion of those millions to vote for you then you had better at least understand what they think even if you intend to defy them because you know better.
I remember similar stories about the Republicans pre-Trump. Guys like Graham and Rubio tried pushing things like bipartisan immigration reform and it backfired spectacularly as the base revolted and the party became anti-globalist/populist. Current democratic leadership seems woefully out of touch with its base's concerns, and the coalition seems to basically be "anti-Trumpism" not pro anything. Seems like the democrats need a left-wing equivalent of a "revolution" to get the base back cause right now they are offering basically nothing accept "we aren't those republicans who you hate."
Basically Democrats need an actual leader since the only person who could unite the party right now: Obama, doesn't seem to care at all anymore and everyone else is just after career preservation.
Basically Democrats need an actual leader since the only person who could unite the party right now: Obama, doesn't seem to care at all anymore and everyone else is just after career preservation.
Democrats have always only stood for "anti-Republican". They're a big tent party held together only by their opposition to the Republicans.
This is less so now than it was in the past now that the Dixecrats have left the Democrats.
This is less so now than it was in the past now that the Dixecrats have left the Democrats.
I hear this description constantly about both sides, but I think I hear it more often about Republicans. Regardless, there may be truth to it, but it's basically useless in conversation.
> ... Given the sorry state of Mr Biden’s approval ratings—by some measures, the worst at this point of a first term of any president since the 1950s—and woeful perceptions of the economy, it is unlikely that the tentative steps that Democrats are taking back towards the median voter will be enough to avert the serious electoral losses that they are facing. It is only after a serious drubbing that the descent from peak progressive will gain speed. Better it be in 2022 than in 2024.
In this entire article, just one mention of the word "inflation."
In 1992 Democratic strategist James Carville coined the expression "It's the economy, stupid." He was talking about then-incumbent George HW Bush's inability to do anything substantive to relieve the economic pain the country was going through.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid
Looks like Dems will be on the receiving end of "It's the economy, stupid" this time.
In this entire article, just one mention of the word "inflation."
In 1992 Democratic strategist James Carville coined the expression "It's the economy, stupid." He was talking about then-incumbent George HW Bush's inability to do anything substantive to relieve the economic pain the country was going through.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid
Looks like Dems will be on the receiving end of "It's the economy, stupid" this time.
I am not sure what Biden could have done to fix the economy based on what he inherited. Interest rates should have risen a long time prior to his inauguration. The costly War on Terror should have ended with Bush’s presidency. Trump shouldn’t have moved so aggressively to alienate trading partners and exit free trade agreements.
He asked the American people to vote for him knowing he was walking into a mess. I don’t think these problems are his fault and he had been hampered by both parties in implementing any of his plans to fix it. At the end of the day though, how is giving him 4 more years a good idea? He’s ineffective. He should let another Democrat run so they can at least claim they have the right plan to fix things.
This is always the line I hear when a democrat is in office and the economy is bad, to the point where I simply don’t buy it anymore.
He could have started by at least acknowledging inflation was a thing and started working to combat it. They spent a year BS’ing the country about it and ignoring until they just couldn’t anymore because everyone whole works for a living was seeing it first hand.
He could have started by at least acknowledging inflation was a thing and started working to combat it. They spent a year BS’ing the country about it and ignoring until they just couldn’t anymore because everyone whole works for a living was seeing it first hand.
Indeed! Under Obama's second term, Janet Yellen did not want to raise interest rates to help Obama. However, during Trump's term, she wanted to raise interest rates, an event which Trump did not like; that's why Trump replaced her with Powell.
Horse shoe theory. If you go far enough right you have all the same concerns of an state ran communist state. Small group of people pulling the strings only difference is allotments vs rent/lease/mortage/debt.
The fear has been that if you go left, you won't own anything. But then introduce companies like Blockrock that take advantage of owned assets during inflation to leverage more debt to outpace the consumers ability to buy their own assets.
So becoming more moderate it to admit something. This isn't about having a well function economy that is based on innovation. This is just speculative meta game that has ursped innovation itself as a profit mode.
This doesn't include the impact of global trade and the ultimate effect on an economy that doesn't produce anything for itself. We need factories that can make goods to the exact needs of the user. Not arbitrary mass manufacturing that only winds up in the landfill on a couple years.
Want something endless to drive the economy that doesn't rely on making endless junk? Look at the mobile game industry, digital goods, entertainment, blueprints and simulated protypes.
Going "right," does not trend towards progress. The democrats must become more "conservative." The fundamental flaw of speculation is the reliance on previous investments and the inability to liquidate to switch towards renewables.. etc... etc...
The fear has been that if you go left, you won't own anything. But then introduce companies like Blockrock that take advantage of owned assets during inflation to leverage more debt to outpace the consumers ability to buy their own assets.
So becoming more moderate it to admit something. This isn't about having a well function economy that is based on innovation. This is just speculative meta game that has ursped innovation itself as a profit mode.
This doesn't include the impact of global trade and the ultimate effect on an economy that doesn't produce anything for itself. We need factories that can make goods to the exact needs of the user. Not arbitrary mass manufacturing that only winds up in the landfill on a couple years.
Want something endless to drive the economy that doesn't rely on making endless junk? Look at the mobile game industry, digital goods, entertainment, blueprints and simulated protypes.
Going "right," does not trend towards progress. The democrats must become more "conservative." The fundamental flaw of speculation is the reliance on previous investments and the inability to liquidate to switch towards renewables.. etc... etc...
Observing from Europe, US politics seems like an extreme case of identifying with the opposite of the enemy. Over several cycles of oversimplifaction, each party simply takes some position from the other, and vocally proclaims the opposite, regardless if there was some truth lost along the way.
What's surprising is the tone of the pro-Democrats responses here: vitriolic but without real substance except whataboutism aimed at republicans. HN is the highest quality online agora I know, which to me is hinting that even the upper ranks of US voters are caught in this process.
What's surprising is the tone of the pro-Democrats responses here: vitriolic but without real substance except whataboutism aimed at republicans. HN is the highest quality online agora I know, which to me is hinting that even the upper ranks of US voters are caught in this process.
So we'll have a right party and a far-right party. This is looking more gloom every year.
Just recalibrate your scale.
That's exactly what's happening and why a portion of the country no longer sees any issues with changes being made to to create an authoritarian government
What specific trump era republican policies make them more authoritarian than the progressive era democrat ones?
How about the attempt to overturn the rightful will of the people as expressed by their votes. There was also the installation throughout the corridors of power of loyalists who lacked in every other qualification save support for the man who would be dictator and changing the rules for termination of government employees to enable to president to unilaterally fire a much larger class of employee who previously would only have been able to be terminated with cause.
How about calls to use the courts to arrest enemies? Bizarre rhetoric about treason. Support for the murder of the VP because he wouldn't support a blatant coup.
How about calls to use the courts to arrest enemies? Bizarre rhetoric about treason. Support for the murder of the VP because he wouldn't support a blatant coup.
I'm curious how much of this was a reaction to the overtly obvious "Russian Collusion" conspiracy theory. If Trump had been left to fail on his own without the interference by intelligence agencies I suspect he would have far fewer ardent supporters.
This is a bad theory.
The Russian collusion angle has to do with the fact that a literal Russian spy met with the Trump campaign, then Trump opined on TV that maybe the Russians could "find" Hillary's emails, then Russia which had a distinct horse in that race then made at least attempts to interfere in the election by hacking and by promulgating dinsinfo on social media in part with the help of data harvested by a Republican think tank.
This perception of corruption was furthered when he made positive statements regarding Russia and Putin including telling the world he believed Putin's statement over the word of our intelligence apparatus and deepened when he was caught withholding aid from the Ukrainians whom had been initially invaded lest we forget in 2014 not 2022.
None of the above is even slightly controversial. What is lacking is specific proof that there was any quid pro quo between Trump and Russia without which is closer to a denial by Al Capone that he knew or had ordered specific hits than a legitimate protestation of innocence. At best He and Putin had interests that aligned with minimal coordination needed and he stood to gain by the illegal actions of a foreign power he had aligned himself with.
Furthermore although the Russia angle was a source of division and much interest on both sides of the aisle it has little to do with support for Trump. Trump is and was a charismatic figure to middle to lower class white America because he told them accurately that they had been left behind in a playing field dominated by the rich and powerful who had long been tilting the game board so that most of the wealth created in large part by hard working Americans ended up in their pockets.
He just managed to put most of the blame on the left and brown people and forgot to mention he was one of the rich elites screwing the little guy and intended to deepen and broaden the corruption that allowed them to keep doing this.
Compared to this Russia was a side show.
The Russian collusion angle has to do with the fact that a literal Russian spy met with the Trump campaign, then Trump opined on TV that maybe the Russians could "find" Hillary's emails, then Russia which had a distinct horse in that race then made at least attempts to interfere in the election by hacking and by promulgating dinsinfo on social media in part with the help of data harvested by a Republican think tank.
This perception of corruption was furthered when he made positive statements regarding Russia and Putin including telling the world he believed Putin's statement over the word of our intelligence apparatus and deepened when he was caught withholding aid from the Ukrainians whom had been initially invaded lest we forget in 2014 not 2022.
None of the above is even slightly controversial. What is lacking is specific proof that there was any quid pro quo between Trump and Russia without which is closer to a denial by Al Capone that he knew or had ordered specific hits than a legitimate protestation of innocence. At best He and Putin had interests that aligned with minimal coordination needed and he stood to gain by the illegal actions of a foreign power he had aligned himself with.
Furthermore although the Russia angle was a source of division and much interest on both sides of the aisle it has little to do with support for Trump. Trump is and was a charismatic figure to middle to lower class white America because he told them accurately that they had been left behind in a playing field dominated by the rich and powerful who had long been tilting the game board so that most of the wealth created in large part by hard working Americans ended up in their pockets.
He just managed to put most of the blame on the left and brown people and forgot to mention he was one of the rich elites screwing the little guy and intended to deepen and broaden the corruption that allowed them to keep doing this.
Compared to this Russia was a side show.
>the Ukrainians whom had been initially invaded lest we forget in 2014 not 2022
Yes, do you remember why they were invaded? The US fomented and funded the 2014 coup, which immediately triggered the invasion - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957. This was orchestrated by US intelligence.
So of course US intelligence wasn't very fond of anybody disrupting their play in Ukraine. No surprise then that they went after Trump as hard as they did for as long as they did, until he was gone.
Trump is more of a broken clock than a foreign policy genius, but on this one (and on the dangers of offshoring too much to China) he was right. We were neck deep in shenanigans in Ukraine for a long time, and he came in and fucked the game up for 4 years. Once he was gone, the game was restarted and here we are. Delayed, but back on the playbook.
Also, thinking it was a bad idea to install a puppet government in Ukraine (and not wanting to continue playing along) isn't "Russian collusion" either. All of our fuckery in Ukraine is why we're staring down the barrel of WWIII and a very, very cold winter too. So on this one, Trump was right.
Yes, do you remember why they were invaded? The US fomented and funded the 2014 coup, which immediately triggered the invasion - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957. This was orchestrated by US intelligence.
So of course US intelligence wasn't very fond of anybody disrupting their play in Ukraine. No surprise then that they went after Trump as hard as they did for as long as they did, until he was gone.
Trump is more of a broken clock than a foreign policy genius, but on this one (and on the dangers of offshoring too much to China) he was right. We were neck deep in shenanigans in Ukraine for a long time, and he came in and fucked the game up for 4 years. Once he was gone, the game was restarted and here we are. Delayed, but back on the playbook.
Also, thinking it was a bad idea to install a puppet government in Ukraine (and not wanting to continue playing along) isn't "Russian collusion" either. All of our fuckery in Ukraine is why we're staring down the barrel of WWIII and a very, very cold winter too. So on this one, Trump was right.
We didn't install a puppet government in Ukraine. Russia tried to install a puppet government in Ukraine that the Ukrainians in turn rejected not least of which after the man who would be puppet met protests with violence. Then he fled back to his masters in Moscow.
Nothing "triggered" the invasion of Ukraine but Putin's greed. He himself said in an essay that it necessary to steal Ukraine sooner rather than later not to preserve the security of Russia which is rendered inviolable not by buffer states but by 1200 nukes but because it would be impossible to steal it later without fighting NATO. Assigning blame to the US is like blaming a wife's talkative friend for the beating her abuser handed out because he feared rightly that her "vacation" was really her fleeing his clutches. It's deeply offensive.
A stopped clock may be right twice a day but Trump was not. His sol meaningful action in that area was an attempt to sell Ukraine on a politically manipulative investigation of his domestic rival in exchange for the supplies already authorized by congress. He did nothing. He did however repeatedly according to his own people repeatedly express the desire to torpedo NATO which would have served to embolden Russia.
We can probably credit both his handlers and the voters who rejected his second term for him not having a worse effect.
Nothing "triggered" the invasion of Ukraine but Putin's greed. He himself said in an essay that it necessary to steal Ukraine sooner rather than later not to preserve the security of Russia which is rendered inviolable not by buffer states but by 1200 nukes but because it would be impossible to steal it later without fighting NATO. Assigning blame to the US is like blaming a wife's talkative friend for the beating her abuser handed out because he feared rightly that her "vacation" was really her fleeing his clutches. It's deeply offensive.
A stopped clock may be right twice a day but Trump was not. His sol meaningful action in that area was an attempt to sell Ukraine on a politically manipulative investigation of his domestic rival in exchange for the supplies already authorized by congress. He did nothing. He did however repeatedly according to his own people repeatedly express the desire to torpedo NATO which would have served to embolden Russia.
We can probably credit both his handlers and the voters who rejected his second term for him not having a worse effect.
No comment on the leaked transcripts showing our meddling in Ukraine prior to the coup? No comment on the invasion of Crimea literally happening the day after our preferred leaders took control after the coup?
These are unrelated coincidences in your mind?
These are unrelated coincidences in your mind?
The invasion of Crimea was directly related to the Russian puppet being unseated. The US isn't responsible for Russia invading a sovereign nation and murdering its citizens. Crimea isn't Russia. Ukraine isn't Russia.
A thought experiment (not that it matters):
An enemy of the US finances and foments a coup in Mexico and the leadership that takes over is hostile to US interests, and friendly to our enemy.
What would the US do? Would we just "honor the sovereignty of Mexico" and let it go?
An enemy of the US finances and foments a coup in Mexico and the leadership that takes over is hostile to US interests, and friendly to our enemy.
What would the US do? Would we just "honor the sovereignty of Mexico" and let it go?
The parent's chosen word, "policy", is strong I think. I would say "position" or "attitude". E.g. encouraging/praising/wanting things like undue violence against protestors, news censorship, and election overturning - things in that vein.
But policy is a genuine materialization of their powers vs what people believe they will do with them. For all his faults I struggle to understand how Trump was in any way "Authoritarian"/ "Fascist" when his policies did not reflect that position, at least relative to his opponents.
I find this rhetoric concerning since it isn't all that different than the hysteria about Obama's "FEMA camps" and when republicans just kept calling him Hitler over every little thing. It's fundamentally disconnected from reality and I personally see it a consequence of consuming too much propaganda. You might counter this with the whole "election overturning" thing but at the end of the day, he stepped down and stopped being president when he lost, even if his whining still persists.
I find this rhetoric concerning since it isn't all that different than the hysteria about Obama's "FEMA camps" and when republicans just kept calling him Hitler over every little thing. It's fundamentally disconnected from reality and I personally see it a consequence of consuming too much propaganda. You might counter this with the whole "election overturning" thing but at the end of the day, he stepped down and stopped being president when he lost, even if his whining still persists.
To be precise, the blue camp is also a right/far-right party because it wants the gov to control more and more things. I don't even know if we have a party or a faction with the mission "more rights to the people".
The democratic party in the US spans center-left to center-right and is expressly in favor of more rights to the people for common concerns like who a person is allowed to have sex with, marry, and choose to reproduce with (or not).
Protecting same-sex couples is a noble cause, but it's a concern for a tiny minority. Abortion is in the same boat. In return Dems want gun control and speech control - both issues concern the majority. And that's why the Dems are losing.
The majority of people in the US want gun safety measures supported by Democrats. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/most-americans-support...
"Speech control" is not a thing. There is no policy being proposed by democrats which restricts speech.
Protecting the rights of individuals is not just a concern for those individuals:
* 71% of people surveyed in the US support gay marriage in 2022. https://news.gallup.com/poll/393197/same-sex-marriage-suppor...
* 71% of people surveyed in the US support keeping the government out of abortion decisions. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/broad-us-support-abortion-r...
"Speech control" is not a thing. There is no policy being proposed by democrats which restricts speech.
Protecting the rights of individuals is not just a concern for those individuals:
* 71% of people surveyed in the US support gay marriage in 2022. https://news.gallup.com/poll/393197/same-sex-marriage-suppor...
* 71% of people surveyed in the US support keeping the government out of abortion decisions. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/broad-us-support-abortion-r...
We'll see the real support numbers in November. As fir those surveys, I can conduct a survey where precisely 71% will support ktulhu. With another survey the same day I can get 71% to reject ktulhu. Surveys is a cheap form of consent manufacturing, with a few rare exceptions.
That isn't what "right" means in the context of American politics. Furthermore although both actions are or can be coercive we tend to distinguish between actions that establish positive rights like keeping your employer from firing you for being gay and actions that take them away like preventing one from terminating their pregnancy.
Politics in this country have become upside down and backwards.
To my mind, AOC is a moderate. Joe Manchin is an extremist. And calls for Democrats to become "more moderate" must inevitably mean that actually-moderate Democrats would better align themselves with cynical political movements which provide thinly-veiled cover for alt-right/MAGA propaganda and unfettered crony capitalism.
Abso-f'n-lutely not.
To my mind, AOC is a moderate. Joe Manchin is an extremist. And calls for Democrats to become "more moderate" must inevitably mean that actually-moderate Democrats would better align themselves with cynical political movements which provide thinly-veiled cover for alt-right/MAGA propaganda and unfettered crony capitalism.
Abso-f'n-lutely not.
bediger4000(3)
In the replies: democrats who disagree
Is there something wrong with being a Democrat and disagreeing with the article, or are you saying that the disagreement is a sign that that article is wrong?
Disagreeing is one thing, flagging an article from The Economist is something else, and really pulls the mask down..
[deleted]