|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
I just looked at the websites for the two Dem candidates looking to run in Ryan's district and my God the A/B testing between "mustachioed ironworker" and "out of town rando" could not be more obvious I assume this means the primary will be weighted to favor the milquetoast Ossoff clone
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Zhulik posted:I really want to believe that the democrats just spent $30+ mil to get 10% more votes than what is essentially a write-in. Um, there's a pretty huge difference between 38% and 48%. 48% is not 10% more than 38%, at least not in the way you seem to be implying (that would be 41.8%). Money spent on elections is spent with the intent of swaying a minority whose votes aren't already decided. There are good arguments to make against the Democratic spending aimed at Ossoff, but this isn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
As an aside, I feel an incredible sense of urgency in enacting any sort of leftist agenda, because in a few years my brain chemistry is going to irreversibly change, and I will find myself incapable of voting for anything but a republican.Ytlaya posted:Um, there's a pretty huge difference between 38% and 48%. 48% is not 10% more than 38%, at least not in the way you seem to be implying (that would be 41.8%). Money spent on elections is spent with the intent of swaying a minority whose votes aren't already decided. Excuse me, I'm looking for catharsis, not math.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Zhulik posted:
Lol, Ossof got fewer votes than Stooks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:According to this the Democrats biggest mistake was supporting gay marriage, trans people, and minorities. Well, yes. If you have an insanely irrational pre-conceived notion/talking point then I imagine that graph supports it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Elotana posted:I just looked at the websites for the two Dem candidates looking to run in Ryan's district and my God the A/B testing between "mustachioed ironworker" and "out of town rando" could not be more obvious Well you wouldn't want to turn off white women in the suburbs, they're a key demo according to my model!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You're wrong. That seems like very doubtful data.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Lol, Ossof got fewer votes than Stooks. And spent $30m more to do so!! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That seems like very doubtful data. Ah, very nice, something that challenges your worldview is now "fake news". Well take it up with these guys, I'm sure you'll come up with some reason to ignore them. https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond (there's lots of good data at this link for everyone)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Ah, very nice, something that challenges your worldview is now "fake news". If anything the data is too good to be credible. It seems the authors must have skewed the definition of center to get such a great majority of people to the left of it. If not, it completely kills the liberal economic part of the Dem platform as a legitimate stance. I mean I knew that people generally overestimated economically conservative leanings of the population, but still, this is so incredibly stacked...
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If anything the data is too good to be credible. It seems the authors must have skewed the definition of center to get such a great majority of people to the left of it. If not, it completely kills the liberal economic part of the Dem platform as a legitimate stance. My man, there's a ton of data that corroborates the theory that the political elites and media of this country believe that America is far more conservative than it actually is and btw, the part that kills the liberal economic part of the Dem platform is that it's been a huge loving mega-failure for anyone not in the top 20%. Huge sections of Middle America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, have been turned into rusty snakepits of opoid addiction while out on the coasts the ultra-rich literally scheme to buy the blood of the young. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
what on earth is conservative economics?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:what on earth is conservative economics? Deregulation, free trade, weak labor protections.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:what on earth is conservative economics? The right side of this: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Deregulation, free trade, weak labor protections. that's literally liberalism though. Is there a reason that "good data" should use baseless terminology? is the economic argument really that loving dead that people can't remember the liberals arent the "good guys"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Ugh, is this one of those things where you're using a dumb definition of "liberal?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
[quote="“ISeeCuckedPeople”" post="“473629727”"] According to this the Democrats biggest mistake was supporting gay marriage, trans people, and minorities. [/quote] I think one could argue that 20 years of worshipping the coast and fart sniffing identity politics could be construed as a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Ugh, is this one of those things where you're using a dumb definition of "liberal?" the globally accepted meaning of the term? yeah the fact that you think that's an "ugh" moment is really enlightening as to why your not-rightwing party is so loving hopeless though, cheers
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:that's literally liberalism though. Is there a reason that "good data" should use baseless terminology? is the economic argument really that loving dead that people can't remember the liberals arent the "good guys"? It's not called liberalism in the graph or itt in general because Americans have twisted the meaning of the word. Yes, classical conservatives and classical liberals would occupy completely different positions on that matrix.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If not, it completely kills the liberal economic part of the Dem platform as a legitimate stance. Newsflash: Neoliberal economics is not a legitimate stance, and has proven itself wrong, repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Guys, I'm going out on a limb here: Spangly A is not discussing politics in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Newsflash: Neoliberal economics is not a legitimate stance, and has proven itself wrong, repeatedly. Legitimate as in pragmatic and elections winning (same difference, I know)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Legitimate as in pragmatic and elections winning (same difference, I know) How'd that work out for Hillary again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Guys, I'm going out on a limb here: Spangly A is not discussing politics in good faith. I'm entirely in support of your conclusions and position but it is rather frustrating to see someone call a paper that apparently doesnt understand the language or consensus of the field it is investigating "good data" shift to the left some more
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You're wrong. That graph is exactly what I had in mind when I said America isn't particularly leftist. Unless you think of leftism as solely encompassing economic issues, which was basically the perception that stymied Bernie's minority outreach. Plus if you think the guy who taxed the rich to fund the most radical explanation of subsidized health care in fifty years is a centrist then your definition of left probably starts in the -0.5 column at best. Edit: Interesting point from the source of that graph: quote:Though many on the far left argue that Clinton would have won had she been more progressive and excited more Sanders voters, the data here suggest that Clinton may have lost some Democratic voters because her campaign was too left leaning, particularly on the identity and social issues, but perhaps also some issues of government intervention as well. PerniciousKnid fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Bernie's minority outreach. You can keep bringing this up, but it'll still be a lie no matter how many times you go back to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Plus if you think the guy who taxed the rich to fund the most radical explanation of subsidized health care in fifty years is a centrist then your definition of left probably starts in the -0.5 column at best. The 1%'s tax rate hasn't gone up in 40 years including during obummer's term ACA is paid for via the individual mandate and... well nothing else. Which is why it was built to fail
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Plus if you think the guy who taxed the rich to fund the most radical explanation of subsidized health care in fifty years is a centrist then your definition of left probably starts in the -0.5 column at best. His plan was the right-wing Heritage Foundation healthcare reform of 1993 with the tort reform provisions removed, which btw account for 2% - 3% of medical costs. His "taxation of the rich" was actually a mixture of penalities for people who refused to buy private insurance (a giveaway for the insurance industry), a piddly .9% tax increase on the top 2%, and a small 4% additional tax on investment income for the top 2%. So let's review: Obama passes right-wing healthcare reform that is financed through a combination of forcing people to enrich insurance companies (or be penalized), a minuscule wage tax, and a small increase on investment income that, nonetheless, still leaves it at a lower tax rate then wages. You consider this "not centrist"
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:That graph is exactly what I had in mind when I said America isn't particularly leftist. Unless you think of leftism as solely encompassing economic issues, which was basically the perception that stymied Bernie's minority outreach. The thing that "stymied" Bernie's outreach was all the media parroting this same talking point of Bernie not connecting to the realities of being a minority in America despite the fact he was just as favorable among minority young voters as among white young voters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The thing that "stymied" Bernie's outreach was all the media parroting this same talking point of Bernie not connecting to the realities of being a minority in America despite the fact he was just as favorable among minority young voters as among white young voters. as opposed to how the media loved Corbyn
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:as opposed to how the media loved Corbyn And both candidates vastly outperformed in the youth vote, regardless of race. It was the older voters who were sufficiently convinced that Hillary was a shoo in and a reliable ally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:That graph is exactly what I had in mind when I said America isn't particularly leftist. Unless you think of leftism as solely encompassing economic issues, which was basically the perception that stymied Bernie's minority outreach. Which is why it's wrong. Now vote GOP fulchrum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
You don't win the demo primary on young voters, minority or not, you do it by winning older southern black voters. Bernie's campaign was doomed from the start because you just don't build the decades of connections the clinton's had overnight. steinrokkan posted:And both candidates vastly outperformed in the youth vote, regardless of race. It was the older voters who were sufficiently convinced that Hillary was a shoo in and a reliable ally. Which makes sense because older people naturally are more risk-adverse (and for good reason). It's kinda like how you switch over to safer investments as you get older.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:as opposed to how the media loved Corbyn Corbyn became the Labour leader essentially by accident. He was put there to be a token also-ran during the nomination process, but because the Labour party also made the "mistake" of democratizing the leadership selection process, he managed to win. That's not what was supposed to happen. Yes, the media was aligned against both of them, but Sanders didn't benefit from the same series of accidental gently caress-ups on the part of the Democratic Party movers and shakers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You're wrong. It's utterly hillaryous to see a Bernie supporter post this, considering it basically says that the Bernie wing of the country is basically non-existent and that the social liberalism/economic conservatism that clinton presented is the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:That graph is exactly what I had in mind when I said America isn't particularly leftist. Unless you think of leftism as solely encompassing economic issues, which was basically the perception that stymied Bernie's minority outreach. Ignoring the fact that I don't know how valid that graph/research is in the first place*, it doesn't really imply that Americans are right-wing on social issues either. It seems to be more or less evenly split around the horizontal axis in that regard. Either way, as I mentioned in an earlier post, people generally don't have static opinions about most things. It's not like Americans are born with a tendency to prefer free-market capitalism. The type of information people are exposed to heavily influences their views about most issues (with the exception of things they're particularly concerned about), and support for (for example) leftist ideology won't increase unless people first support leftist candidates and get their message out. Constantly saying "well, people don't believe X yet so we shouldn't focus on it" would, by logical necessity, result in literally nothing changing ever if everyone adhered to that reasoning. Also, I think many liberals don't understand that, for many leftists, this stuff is non-negotiable. In the same way as liberals (correctly) usually see pro-choice or pro-LGBT rights as non-negotiable positions, leftists also view the general concept of reallocating far more wealth from the wealthy to the poor to be vitally important. In the same way as it makes sense to protest politicians who used to say "well, America just isn't ready for gay marriage", the same goes for politicians who talk about how more economically leftist policy isn't pragmatic. If no one openly advocates for this stuff, public opinion will never changes, so literally nothing is accomplished by private citizens pushing back against such ideas on the basis of them not being pragmatic (unless they're genuinely opposed to them ideologically, which I suspect to be the case with many liberals). * I don't know how they're defining economically/socially liberal or the "center" in the first place. It also doesn't make sense to weight all economic/social issues equally, since in practice certain issues are more vulnerable to actually being affected by who is elected to government than others. EDIT: Also, did you read the post I made about why stuff like Obama taking the speech money is bad? Because I feel like I made a pretty solid argument for why that sort of thing is unequivocally harmful. I realize that it's not currently illegal or anything, but my argument is that it's still inherently unethical and opens the doors to the sort of indirect corruption that characterizes our modern political system (the revolving door between politics and certain corporate sectors is another example of this). VVV I like how he not only misread the graph, but misread it in entirely the opposite way as it was supposed to be read (and while being snarky and insulting others for being dumb, to boot). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:That graph is exactly what I had in mind when I said America isn't particularly leftist. Unless you think of leftism as solely encompassing economic issues, which was basically the perception that stymied Bernie's minority outreach. If taxing the rich to fund social programs makes someone leftist by default we might have to rewrite the biography of one Otto von Bismarck. TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:It's utterly hillaryous to see a Bernie supporter post this, considering it basically says that the Bernie wing of the country is basically non-existent and that the social liberalism/economic conservatism that clinton presented is the way to go. I see you're either incapable of deciphering simple charts, or you're somehow convinced that running away from your base is going to work for the dems this time
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:It's utterly hillaryous to see a Bernie supporter post this, considering it basically says that the Bernie wing of the country is basically non-existent and that the social liberalism/economic conservatism that clinton presented is the way to go. Sucks that Harry Potter books don't include any graphs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:It's utterly hillaryous to see a Bernie supporter post this, considering it basically says that the Bernie wing of the country is basically non-existent and that the social liberalism/economic conservatism that clinton presented is the way to go. It's becoming increasingly clear that there's this hardcore group of Flat Earth Centrists that will look at any data presented, process it, and come out with "the most popular politician in the country with an economic platform that most of America shares...is basically a non-entity"
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:40
|
|