skeet decorator posted:

Yes it is absolutely a post hoc rationalization when there are tons of other factors and you haven't posted any evidence to support your position. In fact I'm willing to make the argument that Dems pushing welfare reform and all but abandoning its minority base in 1992 had a much larger affect on them losing subsequent elections than gun control. In fact other people have made the same argument, and there is actually data to back up that argument:


Oh, and you do know that gun control was part of Clinton's platform leading up to the 1992 election right? Do you have an explanation for why it tanked the Dems in 1994 but won them the election two years prior?

Helsing posted:

It kind of is when there were so many other unusual factors playing into the 94 election including a failed attempt to implement universal healthcare. The preceding period had also seen a Democratic President going against a large part of his voter base, including key constituents like labor unions, to push for the implementation of NAFTA, something many Democratic representatives in the House were against. Tom Foley, Speaker of the House at the time, famously went against his own colleagues and sided with Clinton, which probably contributed to his unprecedented defeat the next year when he became the first House Leader to be defeated in a re-election campaign since 1862.

There are less spurious ways to support your case. A few Democrats like Bill Clinton have actually mused about whether gun control cost them that election. I think the reason Clinton would argue that is really because it helps cover up the damage he and the DLC did to the party by largely abandoning key Democratic voter groups like African Americans and trade unionists. But at least if you were bringing up Clinton's statements then at least we'd be having a debate with some kind of evidence attached to it instead of some very tenuous grasping at straws.

I'll add to this that it's very interesting how DLC New Democrats and Gun Owners can find a common cause in this particular area: they might be on different sides of the issue, but both groups really want to make the 1994 election somehow have an explanation other than Bill Clinton's realignment of the party toward the right.


Yeah but the counter argument is that since perception massively trumps reality here the idea that gun nuts will be less motivated to vote based on something the Democrats say or do in the real world is dubious at best. There are already huge numbers of people convinced, contrary to any evidence, that the government is on the verge of outlawing and confiscating guns. The idea that the Democrats could put out a press release saying "we're not going to touch guns" and that this would somehow help them electorally just doesn't have much support whatever way you want to slice it.

If you want to just argue that you should be allowed to have your guns go ahead. I do not understand this stubborn and almost farcical conviction so many of ya'll have that this particular issue is super important for deciding national elections. Seems more like an existential cry asserting your importance than an actual reasoned political position.

Bill Clinton posted:

All these polls that you see saying the public is for us on all these issues — they are meaningless if they’re not voting issues

Salon.com posted:

As Franklin Foer reported in the New Republic, “The hand-wringing began just as the Supreme Court awarded Florida’s electoral votes to George W. Bush.” Early in December, by Foer’s telling, then-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., summoned House Democrats to his Capitol office, 20 at a time, and gave a sales presentation. Pollster Mark Gersh pointed to charts and told the Democrats they’d lost because culture war issues, especially gun control, had distracted voters. Many apparently went away convinced.

By the middle of 2001, ditching gun control had become conventional wisdom among centrist Democrats. Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., said Al Gore had talked about it too much. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Gore’s running mate, thought gun control had cost the Democratic ticket “a number of voters who on almost every other issue realized they’d be better off with Al Gore.” Terry McAuliffe, head of the Democratic National Committee, in particular wanted his party to drop the issue. In a June 2001 article discussing McAuliffe’s strategy, Roger Simon cited a strong correlation between gun ownership and voting for Bush, as demonstrated by exit poll stats.

Jarmak posted:

Except that the democratic party actually did better with minorities in 1994 then 1990, gently caress the difference was with white males. The 1994 election was where the term "angry white males" to describe a voting block comes from. Gun control wasn't the sole driving issue but it was a major contributor to the culture war bullshit that drove that election. It's also kind of amusing you say "union members" since union members are the primary gun owning demographic in the Democratic party.

skeet decorator posted:

I didn't say anything about unions? You're fitting the narrative to match your ideology instead of looking at actual data. Sure Dems did better with minorities in 1994 than 1990, but that doesn't disprove the trend of minority turnout decreasing after 1992:



1992 had a far higher voter turnout amongst "angry white males" yet the Dems still won with a platform that included gun control. Now please shut the gently caress up about guns and make a real suggestion for winning back the house.

Flowers For Algeria posted:

gun gun gun gun gun gun gun gun gun gun GUN

gobbagool posted:

Why do you consistently post in threads about American politics when your contribution is rarely more than smarmy condescension? Is your life that devoid of meaning?

Jarmak posted:

Wait are you simultaneous arguing that proportional minority turnout dropped after 1992 and that white turnout was higher in 1992 then in 1994? Also good job grabbing numbers of only presidential election years to make a point about midterm elections, that makes lots of sense.

The union member comment was in regard to Helsing's post, I put it in the wrong place.

skeet decorator posted:

Support for gun control is strong among black and hispanic Dems, both groups which have historically low voter turn out. Both groups are poised to form the largest voting bloc over the next few decades. There is evidence to suggest that when Dem's ignore their minority base they lose elections, because the minority voters simply don't vote (see 1994 midterms). You have not presented a single piece of evidence to suggest that dropping gun control from the platform will prevent more Republican voter turnout than it will discourage minority Dems from turning out.

skeet decorator posted:

No I get what you're arguing for, what I don't understand, and what I have yet to see is any evidence whatsoever that supports your arguments. Just so you're clear on what I'm actually arguing. Support for gun control is strong among black and hispanic Dems, both groups which have historically low voter turn out. Both groups are poised to form the largest voting bloc over the next few decades. There is evidence to suggest that when Dem's ignore their minority base they lose elections, because the minority voters simply don't vote (see 1994 midterms). You have not presented a single piece of evidence to suggest that dropping gun control from the platform will prevent more Republican voter turnout than it will discourage minority Dems from turning out.

DeusExMachinima posted:

Did the Colorado recalls not happen in your timeline?

It's entirely possible Hispanics for example continue to be in favor of gun control but you're making a similar assumption about future politics as anti-immigration types. At one time the Irish were an immigrant demo who were totally going to destroy American values... and then they became more successful and accepted. Now they're considered white by everyone in America. Political views aren't racially inherited and change based on how people (and post 1st-gen immigrants especially) feel they're doing over time. I shouldn't have to tell you this.

blowfish posted:

The very fact that basically all Republicans say they're pro gun control yet the Republican party fails to include "we're doing gun control The American Way, unlike those sissy pinko democrats " as a major point in its programme tells you that your poll is meaningless.

skeet decorator posted:

No I'm not arguing that. I said nothing about the proportion of white voters, merely that in absolute numbers there were more white voters in 1992 than 1994. And you're right I suppose we are talking about midterm elections. So have a look at this:



Oh hey, it looks like between the mid to late 80s to mid 90s minority voter turnout drastically decreased while white voter turnout remain relatively flat. That sounds remarkably like what I've been saying! Good job still not posting any evidence to back up your argument!


Still waiting... In the mean time, does anyone have ideas that don't involve guns?

Proposition Joe posted:

How can the Democratic Party win back the house?

The Democratic Party? You mean the political party that wins when voter turnout is high and has been having trouble energizing their base because of their bitter disappointment in the party establishment's inability to fight for important left wing causes?

Clearly the solution is to stop fighting for popular policies and wedge issues.

Seriously though, especially considering that Democratic candidates for the house do get more votes than their Republican counterparts, the main issues with the House and Senate are institutional. The House and Senate bias rural areas which favor the Republican party, so if the Democrats want more wiggle room (or a fair democratic system) then electoral and structural reform is necessary. In the meantime, they need to energize their base as much as possible, which means racing to the left on all issues. This is mainly the case in regards to economic issues but social issues (like, I don't know gun control) are important as well. If the Democratic party is really competent, then a left wing economic message could swing those poor rural voters that are traditional Republican voters and turn the whole gerrymandered system upside down.

The Insect Court posted:

No. Arguing with gun nuts is like arguing with creationists, you are never going to change their 'minds' because their positions are not based on the rational analysis of evidence. At least one poll has been posted that shows that gun control is a winning issue, the usual bad faith/insane arguments against it were thrown against the wall to see if any would stick. Bonus question: If someone posted a poll showing strong support for a generic loosening of gun laws, how many of the gun nuts would reject it because it was not specific enough in its wording?

smg77 posted:

Barring some magic supreme court ruling that fixes gerrymandering this is the only solution. As usual all the gunchat is a distraction.

Liquid Communism posted:

Seriously.

Show me some statistics that make an AWB 'sensible', since I can't seem to find anything beyond 'ivory tower Dems are terrified of scary black plastic rifles'.

The numbers don't support it.


That's the whole point of this argument. The whole issue is poison, as seen here with the vicious infighting among a mostly staunchly Dem crowd, with effectively zero chance of doing anyone but the opposition any good or achieving its stated goals of reducing homicides.

Trabisnikof posted:

Do you have any evidence that Democrats would control the house if they decided to abandon their base on this issue and all become devout anti-regulation advocates?

skeet decorator posted:

Still waiting... In the mean time, does anyone have ideas that don't involve guns?

Trabisnikof posted:

Do you have any evidence that Democrats would control the house if they decided to abandon their base on this issue and all become devout anti-regulation advocates?

BitcoinRockefeller posted:

From a way back and not about guns but I agree with this. I really think the democrats should be pushing for a GMI. I have family in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and it's always such depressing place where no one has any money or jobs, if they frame a GMI as letting people who like living there be able to support themselves and not have to abandon the towns they grew up in and love because there's no more copper or whatever I could see them making inroads in rural areas as well as energizing their younger base.

Chomskyan posted:

Maybe union members have high levels of gun ownership. This still ignores the fact that most gun owners favor stricter gun laws

Chomskyan posted:

Ever notice how when there's a gun-control thread, pro-gun posters whine about the focus being on guns rather than more important issues like healthcare? How come when we have a thread that doesn't have to be about guns, they insist on making the discussion about guns rather than those other, more important issues?

Hmm

Chomskyan posted:

"Hey bud, I know I never cite any evidence in defense of my views, but you better provide evidence for yours!"

"Also scientific polls don't count"

I imagine you'll just ignore the evidence like you always do but here

DeusExMachinima posted:

those living stereotypes who do exist in NYC/San Fran.

DeusExMachinima posted:

I asked early on and I'll ask again, if Republicans told you tomorrow that they were done chasing abortion bans and really just are thinking of the mother's health with a few minor checks beforehand, would you trust them automatically or would you check to see what laws they're passing/repealing in states where they have a supermajority?

DeusExMachinima posted:

gently caress this poo poo is looping on itself. Look, if you're positive that minorities really are going to make or break elections for you on gun control, AWBs won't cut it because long guns aren't what's killing them. It'll have to be assault weaponhandgun bans to address that situation and good job creating tons of new highly motivated Republican voters, white and not white, in that case.

DeusExMachinima posted:

Did the Colorado recalls not happen in your timeline?

It's entirely possible Hispanics for example continue to be in favor of gun control but you're making a similar assumption about future politics as anti-immigration types. At one time the Irish were an immigrant demo who were totally going to destroy American values... and then they became more successful and accepted. Now they're considered white by everyone in America. Political views aren't racially inherited and change based on how people (and post 1st-gen immigrants especially) feel they're doing over time. I shouldn't have to tell you this.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-changing-outlook-for-black-voters/403975/ posted:

In the lead up to the 1992 presidential election, Brown admonished an overconfident Democratic Party for again taking the black vote for granted. Lest its short memory fuel undue overconfidence, he famously reminded the party, “The view is that blacks have nowhere else to go, but blacks always have somewhere to go—they can go fishing.”

...

The most commonly cited explanation for this phenomenon is the “black utility heuristic,” a framework developed by University of Chicago professor Michael Dawson in 1994. More commonly referred to as linked fate, it’s the sentiment among blacks that one’s prospects are ultimately tied to the success of the race. In his seminal book Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics, Dawson argues that because race has been the predominant factor in blacks’ American experience, “it was much more efficient for them to use the status of the group, both relative and absolute, as a proxy for individual utility.” In more practical terms, black voters prioritize the well-being of the group over their individual interests, and consider what’s best for the group as a whole because history has shown them that “we are in this thing together.”

...

Whereas linked fate in the latter part of the 20th century meant political solidarity with the Democratic Party, the 21st-century iteration requires political competition to prioritize black America’s concerns. And much like those young people who marched to obtain passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, this new segment of the electorate will not simply bow out and go fishing—instead, they are willing to go to the mat.

VitalSigns posted:

Pro-choice Republicans do exist and do get elected in liberal areas eg Governor Mitt Romney so yeah it seems like it's not necessary for northeastern Republicans to come down to Texas and Arkansas and make all Republicans shut up about abortion forever to get a pro-choice candidate elected in a liberal state.

Probably because abortion doesn't have anything like the ridiculous levels of conspiracy theories and paranoia that Republicans have made out of the gun control issue to drive turnout.

spoon0042 posted:

DeusExMachinima posted:

This guy feels like a zero effort easy button by now but sure why not since you asked

Jarmak posted:

Census data says everyone's turnout was relatively flat:

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/1994/htables.html

Also I've put up plenty of evidence, more then you have at least, you just don't like it.

Could you please tell me what sort of evidence you won't hand wave away? "Why someone lost an election 20 years ago" isn't exactly something you can test in a lab, it's something people usually debate with logical inference.

Jarmak posted:

Except that the democratic party actually did better with minorities in 1994 then 1990, gently caress the difference was with white males. The 1994 election was where the term "angry white males" to describe a voting block comes from. Gun control wasn't the sole driving issue but it was a major contributor to the culture war bullshit that drove that election. It's also kind of amusing you say "union members" since union members are the primary gun owning demographic in the Democratic party.

Jarmak posted:

Census data says everyone's turnout was relatively flat:

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/1994/htables.html

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/1994/htable01.txt posted:

code:

    Table 1.  Percent Reported Voting and Registering in Congressional
              Election Years, by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Gender:
              November 1966 to 1994

    Source:  U.S. Bureau of the Census
    Release date:  August 1996

    __________________________________________________________________________
                                        Hispanic
    Election    Total    White    Black origin 1/    Male   Female
    __________________________________________________________________________

    VOTING
    1994         45.0     47.3     37.1     20.2     44.7     45.3
    1990         45.0     46.7     39.2     21.0     44.6     45.4
    1986         46.0     47.0     43.2     24.2     45.8     46.1

Jarmak posted:

Census data says everyone's turnout was relatively flat:

skeet decorator posted:

gently caress you, you disengenuous piece of poo poo. The sum total of the evidence you have provided is a just-so story about why Dems lost an election.



Hmmm, looks like you agree with me that gun control did not in fact cause an uptick in voter turnout for the Republicans. Although I'm curious why you didn't quote that table directly:



Hmmmm... I think I'll accept almost any evidence that isn't deliberately misleading bullshit.

Jarmak posted:

Why the gently caress are you including 1986?

skeet decorator posted:

quote:

In 1988, the late Ed Brown, then-executive director of the Voter Education Project, watched as the Democratic Party ignored blacks’ growing displeasure with Massachusetts Governor and Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis. The party assumed blacks had little choice but to support Dukakis since the only alternative would be to defect and vote Republican—an option ostensibly more unattractive than an inattentive Dukakis campaign. The party was wrong: Black voter turnout rate plummeted by nearly 5 percent, the second largest decline for this bloc ever observed.

skeet decorator posted:

Oh hey, it looks like between the mid to late 80s to mid 90s minority voter turnout drastically decreased while white voter turnout remained relatively flat. That sounds remarkably like what I've been saying!

skeet decorator posted:

I included 1986 because I have an annoying habit of presenting evidence that supports my argument.

anne frank fanfic posted:

2009: Entire country gives a supermajority to Democrats since the republicans had been so bad the past 8 years. They could've done anything except touch guns and they'd be the power for the next decade or so. "Trust us, we won't touch guns as soon as we get into power" was the rallying cry to wary voters.

January 2010: National call to ban all guns from Democrats. They could've chosen to do anything with their supermajority, but they love banning guns and instantly chose to do it. They liked choosing to ban extended magazines that jam more, so that Serial Killers don't jam as often and kill more innocent children. Another cool thing they liked to do is ban ammo drums which jam often, so that movie theater shooters could shoot more Batman fans (the Tarantino fans of superhero movies). They also like continuing to ban automatic weapons that are already banned so that shooters are more accurate and less likely to jam while shooting up colleges. Their ideal thing that happens is a shooter waits several days before getting his perfectly sized not-black pistols with plenty of less-likely-to-jam 10 round magazines and can kill the most people such as Virginia Tech (which they love to keep as school gun free school zones. Ever notice how 100% of school shootings occur in, I don't know, Schools?)

February 2010: Republicans start to get elected again in special elections and recalls in historically blue states (including Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Colorado). November 2010 there's a republican majority.

But it wasn't the guns, it was Bush was actually good again and everyone missed him.. hmm. Well it's definitely another reason besides guns due to this survey that says that people like the current gun laws as written.

Jarmak posted:

The 1990 to 1994 numbers are relatively flat, you're trying explain a difference in electoral success between the 1992 election and the 1994 election by pointing at a turnout drop off that primarily manifested from 1986-1990.

Jarmak posted:

Except that the democratic party actually did better with minorities in 1994 then 1990, gently caress the difference was with white males.

"Jarmak" posted:

But there were way more white dudes than minorities sure white people's turnout only increased slightly while minority's continued to decrease significantly, but they made up for it in absolute numbers!

anne frank fanfic posted:

2009: Entire country gives a supermajority to Democrats since the republicans had been so bad the past 8 years. They could've done anything except touch guns and they'd be the power for the next decade or so. "Trust us, we won't touch guns as soon as we get into power" was the rallying cry to wary voters.

January 2010: National call to ban all guns from Democrats. They could've chosen to do anything with their supermajority, but they love banning guns and instantly chose to do it. They liked choosing to ban extended magazines that jam more, so that Serial Killers don't jam as often and kill more innocent children. Another cool thing they liked to do is ban ammo drums which jam often, so that movie theater shooters could shoot more Batman fans (the Tarantino fans of superhero movies). They also like continuing to ban automatic weapons that are already banned so that shooters are more accurate and less likely to jam while shooting up colleges. Their ideal thing that happens is a shooter waits several days before getting his perfectly sized not-black pistols with plenty of less-likely-to-jam 10 round magazines and can kill the most people such as Virginia Tech (which they love to keep as school gun free school zones. Ever notice how 100% of school shootings occur in, I don't know, Schools?)

February 2010: Republicans start to get elected again in special elections and recalls in historically blue states (including Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Colorado). November 2010 there's a republican majority.

But it wasn't the guns, it was Bush was actually good again and everyone missed him.. hmm. Well it's definitely another reason besides guns due to this survey that says that people like the current gun laws as written.

DeusExMachinima posted:

Thread delivers little info on how Dems can reclaim the House.

Thread delivers a certain type of Dem self-righteously extolling the virtues of shooting themselves in the foot while explaining that they're not really shooting themselves in the foot and even if they were it doesn't really hurt. Besides even if it did hurt, shooting yourself in the foot is morally superior to being able to walk into town to do things that will help the people there right now. We can help people later because that day will definitely come after we finish shooting our feet off. History is inevitable.

You're so far from self-awareness that if the word 'introspection' was engraved on each nanoangstrom of your synapses it would not equal one one-billionth of the ignorance you've shown at this micro-instant.

If you were an AI, Dr. Turing would delete you.