|
Fangz posted:Democrats are on average more left wing than the average voter. Not really. The people who voted for Clinton did it because she was was more conservative. If you start including the Boomers who voted for her, you're talking about the same people who voted for Reagan and Bush. Fangz posted:If you make the democrat primary a re-run of the general election, then you create the risk of democratic presidential candidates triangulating to capture the votes of republican or independent voters (who in many states far outnumber democrat voters) in even the primaries, let alone the general election. This process greatly enhances the influence of the right wing of the country in picking the more left of the country's two candidates. Is it that difficult to see? Any resistance to progressive agenda by the Democrats comes within the party itself. And this is clearly demonstrated. If you're really upset about how independent voters operate within our election system, blame the identity politics that constantly frames them in one light or the other. Our electoral system specifically disenfranchises voters, especially younger ones. I only see hypocrisy every single time Democrats defend their closed primary system while simultaneously being outraged at voter ID laws when they're essentially designed to do the exact same thing: keep certain people elected.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
Are you seriously trying to claim republicans are more left wing than democrats here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Are you seriously trying to claim republicans are more left wing than democrats here? Did I say that, or are you just trying hard to be disingenuous?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Did I say that, or are you just trying hard to be disingenuous? I said that the third of the population that are democrats are more left wing than the average voter. You disagreed with this. This implies something about the left wingness of non democrats, no? Edit: Yeah, as a mostly closed process, the resistance to a progressive agenda within the democrats has to come from the democratic party itself. This weakens such forces dramatically relative to the rest of American society. I do not understand why it is difficult to grasp that opening up the process allows the influence of substantial right wing forces outside the democratic party, and that simultaneously there is essentially no strong left wing forces outside of the democrats. Thus it would weaken the hand of progressives in the race substantially. Fangz has issued a correction as of 03:39 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I said that the third of the population that are democrats are more left wing than the average voter. You disagreed with this. This implies something about the left wingness of non democrats, no? The first sign of trouble is that Democrats are more likely to break from their party and vote for the opposition. And I don't think the ones who voted for Clinton are as left wing as the independents who voted for Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:The first sign of trouble is that Democrats are more likely to break from their party and vote for the opposition. And I don't think the ones who voted for Clinton are as left wing as the independents who voted for Sanders. I can't parse the first sentence. As for the second sentence, the independent bernie supporters that no longer want to vote for Clinton now greatly support Trump and Johnson in preference to Stein. Hardly evidence of progressive leanings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Fangz posted:As for the second sentence, the independent bernie supporters that no longer want to vote for Clinton now greatly support Trump and Johnson in preference to Stein. Hardly evidence of progressive leanings. Silver says you're wrong. Nate Silver posted:Overall throughout the primaries and caucuses, I estimate, Clinton is beating Sanders by 27 percentage points among self-identified Democrats but losing to Sanders by 31 points among voters who call themselves independents but voted in the Democratic primaries.2 This might be confusing because we usually think of independent voters as being moderate. Sanders voters, however, are definitely to the left of Clinton, but a lot of them don’t like to call themselves Democrats. (Sanders himself, of course, has repeatedly been elected to Congress as an independent and did not officially declare himself to be a Democrat until November.) As a result, about 40 percent of Sanders’s primary and caucus voters identify as independent, as Republican or with some party other than Democrats, according to my estimates. A lot of the confusion comes with commonly associating the word moderate with independent, when that clearly isn't the case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Silver says you're wrong. Read the article more carefully. Sanders voters overall are more left wing because he has a strong contingent of very left wing voters within the democrat party. Then he has a second group of people from outside the party that are a lot more moderate. This is illustrated by this chart below. http://i2.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/hopkins-ideology-2.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=1150&ssl=1 Sender's independent supporters are actually a lot less left wing than Hillary's democrat supporters, and removing independents would therefore clearly move the average voter to the left. I'm not sure why you gave that block quote when it's not anywhere in the link you gave? Edit: As the article says, Sanders did not do well with independents because of ideology, but because their dislike of 'partisan politics', which I would suggest to be an euphemism for Hillary. Fangz has issued a correction as of 04:04 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Look at Hillary vs Trump as Gore vs Bush, but this time with hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:The first sign of trouble is that Democrats are more likely to break from their party and vote for the opposition. And I don't think the ones who voted for Clinton are as left wing as the independents who voted for Sanders. You mean despite the fact that they're the ones who are more likely to break from the party and vote for the opposition over Hillary? Dead Cosmonaut posted:Not really. The people who voted for Clinton did it because she was was more conservative. If you start including the Boomers who voted for her, you're talking about the same people who voted for Reagan and Bush. Yeah, that is totally the only reason people had to support Hillary over Sanders. It couldn;t have anything to do with her actually accomplishing things, or her having actual plan, or her being an actual goddamn democrat. No, the majority of the party decided "Hang on, this leftism thing really sucks", and decided to go with the most right wing candidate, Hill- no, wait, Jim Webb. Okay, second most right wing, Secretary Cli - Lincoln CHafee. Seriously? Okay, third most, *checks roster* Martin O'Malley. No, not him either? Huh, how weird, the choice was between the leftist with accomnplishments and the leftist without them, and people backed the one who could get things done. How bizarre. Fulchrum has issued a correction as of 04:29 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Read the article more carefully. Did you actually bother looking at your own chart? The only group that beats out independent voters in ideology are strong democrats, which make up around 11% of the party if you include both Sanders and Clinton supporters combined. Fangz posted:Edit: As the article says, Sanders did not do well with independents because of ideology, but because their dislike of 'partisan politics', which I would suggest to be an euphemism for Hillary. I don't think I can find in any dictionary partisan politics = hillary clinton. I don't think people should rush to defend it either, because this enabled Trump to run for President. Fulchrum posted:You mean despite the fact that they're the ones who are more likely to break from the party and vote for the opposition over Hillary? The ones who break from the party do it over social issues such as abortion. I wonder what Hillary's views on these stances are. Fulchrum posted:Yeah, that is totally the only reason people had to support Hillary over Sanders. The first point to take away from this is that Sanders supporters are always more liberal than Clinton supporters — and that among strong Democrats, the difference is quite pronounced. Second, the ideological differences between weak Democrats and Democratic leaners are quite modest. On average, the independents who lean toward both the Democrats and Sanders put themselves at 3.48 on the ideological scale, which is between “slightly liberal” (3) and “moderate” (4). Comparable Clinton backers fall at 3.59, putting them slightly closer to “moderate.” So Sanders’s strength among independent leaners isn’t driven by strength with moderate voters. In fact, as Democratic voters become more moderate, they become slightly more likely to back Clinton. In a bivariate regression, for every 1-point increase in conservatism, Democrats become about 2 percentage points more likely to support Clinton. It actually is one of the reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:
You're an idiot. The Bernie or Bust morons who are breaking from the party are not doing it for social policy - if anything, those assholes think social policy is the death of leftism since, as many Bernie Babies have said, social issues are just a trap to defend capitalism or some such bullshit. Dead Cosmonaut posted:The first point to take away from this is that Sanders supporters are always more liberal than Clinton supporters — and that among strong Democrats, the difference is quite pronounced. Dead Cosmonaut posted:Second, the ideological differences between weak Democrats and Democratic leaners are quite modest. On average, the independents who lean toward both the Democrats and Sanders put themselves at 3.48 on the ideological scale, which is between “slightly liberal” (3) and “moderate” (4). Comparable Clinton backers fall at 3.59, putting them slightly closer to “moderate.” So Sanders’s strength among independent leaners isn’t driven by strength with moderate voters. In fact, as Democratic voters become more moderate, they become slightly more likely to back Clinton. In a bivariate regression, for every 1-point increase in conservatism, Democrats become about 2 percentage points more likely to support Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
nice meltdown
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
why did you put a big slab of wood over that hole? do you think that the third party voters won't be able to get out? it's just a slab of wood, you didn't bolt it closed or anything who's the little demon in the top left
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:why did you put a big slab of wood over that hole? do you think that the third party voters won't be able to get out? it's just a slab of wood, you didn't bolt it closed or anything fishmech
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Did you actually bother looking at your own chart? The only group that beats out independent voters in ideology are strong democrats, which make up around 11% of the party if you include both Sanders and Clinton supporters combined. 11% of the party? Where the hell did you get that? Is this a thing where you are making up numbers now? There's equal or more strong than weak democrats. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-s34-2xGEAcM/ThcxWQNOqbI/AAAAAAAAAGI/TMXZMpo4cW0/s640/trends+dem.jpg quote:The first point to take away from this is that Sanders supporters are always more liberal than Clinton supporters — and that among strong Democrats, the difference is quite pronounced. Second, the ideological differences between weak Democrats and Democratic leaners are quite modest. On average, the independents who lean toward both the Democrats and Sanders put themselves at 3.48 on the ideological scale, which is between “slightly liberal” (3) and “moderate” (4). Comparable Clinton backers fall at 3.59, putting them slightly closer to “moderate.” So Sanders’s strength among independent leaners isn’t driven by strength with moderate voters. In fact, as Democratic voters become more moderate, they become slightly more likely to back Clinton. In a bivariate regression, for every 1-point increase in conservatism, Democrats become about 2 percentage points more likely to support Clinton. Controlling for party identification. So yes, strong democrats that vote Hillary are less liberal than strong democrats that vote Bernie. But that's not what you said, is it? You said that non-democrat voters (which include republicans, that this graph doesn't even show) who voted Bernie are more left wing than the equal mix of strong and weak democrats within the party who voted for Clinton. That's completely wrong. That's why the 538 article also links to exit polling that indicates that if you filter to voters who consider Obama 'too liberal', Bernie's vote increases dramatically. That's who your independents are. Edit: remember my point here was that non-democrats are less left wing than democrats, and that a Sanders/Clinton run is a bit of an aberration. What significance does subdividing Independents between Bernie and Hillary voters achieve? Both of Sanders and Hillary's most left wing supporters are inside the party. In an ordinary year, for both to appeal to non democrat voters in the primary, they will have to move to the right. Fangz has issued a correction as of 10:52 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
Look, you are essentially making the argument that Bernie supporters are more liberal, Bernie supporters are more independent, therefore being independent makes you more liberal. But that's a logical fallacy...
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders lost a lot of votes in closed primaries because left-leaning independents are morons who think their party registration is some kind of virtue they need to signal and refused to change their registration even though literally the only thing it affects is whose primary you can vote in hell, one of the Nevada Sanders delegates was disqualified from the state caucus because he changed his registration back to independent after the county caucus lmao these people don't need to be catered to because they're loving idiots but on the other hand registration deadlines more than a few weeks before the election definitely prevent people from participating
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
like if you're so much of a purist that given the choice between voting and not bring associated with the Democrats in a database you choose not voting, it's probably for the best
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:Bernie Sanders lost a lot of votes in closed primaries because left-leaning independents are morons who think their party registration is some kind of virtue they need to signal and refused to change their registration even though literally the only thing it affects is whose primary you can vote in I don't see why people who don't want to associate with the Democratic party should participate in the internal decision making process of the Democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:like if you're so much of a purist that given the choice between voting and not bring associated with the Democrats in a database you choose not voting, it's probably for the best but but wont you think of how independents are to blame for Bush? Trying to get people to not vote by calling them idiots or retards or whatever is probably just as bad as using policies to exclude voters. One of the big themes of the democratic party was diversity and inclusion(using a few token minorities), but its good to see that for the most part democrats don't really believe in things like that. Doorknob Slobber has issued a correction as of 16:33 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Reason posted:but but wont you think of how independents are to blame for Bush? This is Something Awful, calling people idiots is what we do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Reason posted:but but wont you think of how independents are to blame for Bush? I would love if absolutely everyone would vote but these people excluded their own loving selves by refusing to change a word on their voter registration, a conscious decision to exclude yourself from voting because you're too much of a baby to associate yourself with something you don't like (even in an effort to change it from within!) is their own fault also lol at trying to draw a parallel between "letting minorities participate in the decisions affecting them" and "allowing a bunch of idiot bitch baby children to decide the direction of your party when they actively refuse actual membership in the party". gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
so are we headed for full blown national socialism or what
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:also lol at trying to draw a parallel between "letting minorities participate in the decisions affecting them" and "allowing a bunch of idiot bitch baby children to decide the direction of your party when they actively refuse actual membership in the party". gently caress off It doesn't matter which excuse you use you're still trying to be less inclusive for the process. A process that is already pretty exclusive. Then democrats come in a thread for progressives and complain that people might vote third party because they have so much interest in picking one of the two candidates that directly oppose a great deal of progressive policies. Or they call progressives that might try to influence the democratic party in such a way that they're slightly less terrible baby idiots or whatever. All the while the national democratic party organizers are trying to sell their party as inclusive and progressive. There is a parallel between those two things, especially when you consider that calling people baby idiots has been a reason to exclude people from voting before. lol you gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
The issue is that attempting to assert that there is a large demo of independent progressives out there is dumb. All the data we have points at those who claim Independence from both parties are right leaning, not left leaning. This is one of the reasons why on average Bernies voters in the primary were less progressive than Hillary's, despite Bernie running a more progressive platform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Reason posted:It doesn't matter which excuse you use you're still trying to be less inclusive for the process. A process that is already pretty exclusive. One year ago, this forum was 90% Bernie fanatics calling Hillary supporters names. But I'm guessing a short memory helps with this sort of argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Seriously you are overestimating the number of people who are outside the Democratic party yet support progressive ideas. Yes a lot of independents are progressives to the left of Obama and other mainstream Dems. But just as many are right leaning small government whacks or neo nazis or single issue gun owners. Should all those people have gotten a say in who the Dems nominated? I see a big difference between people who supported Sanders because he was to the left of Clinton on policies and people who supported Sanders because unlike that snake Clinton at least he's honest. If you're an independent who didn't vote Obama in 2012, there's a fair chance you're against the drone strike policies he ramped up, but there's also a fan chance you just won't vote for a Muslim president for any reason at all. At least with the Democratic party voters you know they're declared for moving the country to the left. It's why Sanders chose to run as a Dem rather than as an independent and why he endorsed the Democratic party nominee rather than running for third party. I agree that voting should be easier, but I also have no personal issue with the idea that to vote for the Democratic nominee for whatever race I should at least pretend to be a member of the Democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:sorry homework explainer, i thought you of all people would have realised that leftism is blooming in the developing world, and that's where the true revolution is taking place really. yeah the ypg is having a real hard time. they're always asking the west to send over softboys with zero combat training and no understanding of conditions on the ground
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:so are we headed for full blown national socialism or what We're probably at the third or fourth to last solution at the current moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Keep Autism Wired posted:DR. JILL STEIN: I agree. Donald Trump is a very dangerous person. He says extremely despicable, reprehensible things. But at the same time, Hillary Clinton has a track record for doing absolutely horrific things, for expanding wars, in the likes of Libya, for example. There could hardly be an example of a more catastrophic war, which has been more problematic for increasing the terrorist threats. Finger on the nuclear button? I worry very much about the air war that Hillary Clinton would like to start over Syria with this no-fly zone against a nuclear-armed power in the form of Russia. jill stein is a loving moron and the green party is full of backwards crystal healing nutjobs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
well ol jillenstein has a good point about the honduras, the poo poo the clintons pulled there was totally unforgiveable
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Reason posted:It doesn't matter which excuse you use you're still trying to be less inclusive for the process. A process that is already pretty exclusive. I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you: someone refusing to change their registration out of spite is not exclusion. Registering as a Democrat is absolutely the least you can do to expect to be able to influence matters in the Democratic party. It is exactly the same process to register as a Democrat as it is to register NPA/Independent, except you check a different box. There is no literacy test. There is no religious test. There is only the purity test, and all the most obnoxious indie progressives are imposing that test on themselves. But yes, the plight of disenfranchised leftists is exactly like poor southern minorities, I would like to hear more
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Mrit posted:One year ago, this forum was 90% Bernie fanatics calling Hillary supporters names. oh don't worry people who thought Bernie could effect long term actual change with a clear progressive result in the Democratic party were probably just as wrong as any other Democrat. The Ninth Layer posted:Seriously you are overestimating the number of people who are outside the Democratic party yet support progressive ideas. Venom Snake posted:The issue is that attempting to assert that there is a large demo of independent progressives out there is dumb. And yet people blame independents and progressive who vote third party for Bush. I kind of wish I could find a more recent version of this study but I can only find ones that break it down into conservative, liberal, moderate which I don't feel are adequate descriptors. Fullhouse posted:I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you: I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you: Having to say you are X to participate in the voting process is exclusionary, especially when it differs state to state and applied by the democratic party arbitrarily.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Reason posted:oh don't worry people who thought Bernie could effect long term actual change with a clear progressive result in the Democratic party were probably just as wrong as any other Democrat. I think anyone who voted Bush is to blame for getting Bush elected. By the same token I think people who voted Nader over Gore out of protest, when they knew Nader wasn't going to win, probably spent most of 2001-2008 regretting their decision. Especially if they lived in Florida. It sounds like you are in favor of having Republicans vote in Democratic primaries. Otherwise wouldn't we be excluding people from the process?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Asking for less stringent registration deadlines is not "having Republicans vote in Democratic primaries"
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:It sounds like you are in favor of having Republicans vote in Democratic primaries. Otherwise wouldn't we be excluding people from the process? I'm in favor of changing the way primaries work so that more than 9% of people can have an effect on the outcome of who we get to vote for in November. If that means that for some reason Republicans could if they wanted to vote for Democratic Primary candidate then good for them. Voting in a primary for a different party is already a thing that happens. Doorknob Slobber has issued a correction as of 21:07 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
imagine, if you will, a sweaty wanker in a Washington polling booth as he struggles mightily to check the box certifying that he is, in fact, actually a Democrat in order to cast his vote for the Democratic party a sad wanker
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:Washington polling booth Ignorance is bliss. As far as voting in Primaries in WA state goes. For progressives participating in our pointless primary voting process could actually be something to spend some time thinking on. Sorry I have to post this stupid news story again. Its not a box that says "I am in fact a Democrat" its a box that says, "I will perjure myself if I vote for something other than a Democrat or Republican in November." Doorknob Slobber has issued a correction as of 21:31 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
except there's multiple pictures of the ballot in the article you cited and all it says is "I promise I didn't vote in the other party's primary or caucus", and also it was a fake election that didn't matter, so I think you've lost your point again
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 21:54
|
|