|
Sodomy Hussein posted:https://twitter.com/CursedLavaLamp/status/1333597793739534338 Looks like a Dem-aligned PAC set up that up. https://www.politifact.com/personalities/really-american/
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:The Georgia campaign for what amounts to control of the entire nation is currently turning on whether Trump will give up his self-serving fraudulent election narrative, which is damaging to GOP turnout, since if all elections are fake, then why vote? It's becoming abundantly clear that many voters feel loyalty to Trump, not to the GOP, which in their minds they conflate with the devious deep state. .The rumor is that those billboards are coming from a Dem PAC. But it's something the Loeffler/Purdue campaigns are worried about. https://twitter.com/MadelainePisani/status/1333767541987143680 quote:“You can’t say the system is rigged but elect these two senators,” said Eric Johnson, a campaign adviser to Kelly Loeffler, one of the G.O.P. Senate candidates, and a former Republican leader of the Georgia Senate. “At some point he either drops it or he says I want everybody to vote and get their friends to vote so that the margins are so large that they can’t steal it.” It seems obvious that someone cannot simultaneously believe that elections are corrupt and effortlessly stolen by Democrats, but also think it's fine to vote in an election 2 months later, but conservatives have no problem holding multiple contradictory positions at once - and this may in fact be one of the defining traits that leads someone into being either left or right quote:James Sublett, 67, voted for Mr. Trump this year and believes the president’s unfounded claims that Democrats “stole the election.” Learning the difference between socialism and communism is something you'd expect out of an entry level political course, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
zoux posted:.The rumor is that those billboards are coming from a Dem PAC. But it's something the Loeffler/Purdue campaigns are worried about. It's not a rumor. The name of the PAC is on the billboard. The pac is owned by Justin Horowitz, who, according to his LinkedIn: quote:At 24, he founded the now largest Democratic Socialist social media platform in the nation, performing over one quarter of a billion organic impressions per month across social media. He also founded Really American PAC, Americans Against Fascism, the Cannabis Advocacy Network, and is a Co-founder of Men4Choice. Its pretty classic ratfucking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 23:09
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:At this point I'm not sure anyone understands the thinking of die-hard Trump loyalists. Anecdotally, it's "whatever Trump tells them to believe". They repeat his tweets almost word for word and get really mad if you ask them anything off message.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
 Newt Gingrich really did destroy the permanent House majority. Imagine what it felt like to be a Republican that year (hopefully we'll get to feel the same if the worm turns in our lifetime. Suuuure thought it was gonna be this year though) Also interesting that this year is the only year where majority share is commensurate with vote share. What accounts for the discrepancy between majority and vote share in the post-Watergate midterms? Democratic gerrymandering? https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/1333923261999149061 It's clear that Trump juiced turnout for both parties down ballot. zoux fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Dec 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Both very trustworthy and upstanding people. Its such a boring/pointless thing to lie about
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
Despera posted:Its such a boring/pointless thing to lie about As others have pointed out, if Mitch doesn't bring appointment to a vote, they can be telling the truth but also unwilling to do anything about Mitch other than say they are "very concerned". Both of them are famous for posturing so taking them at their word is naive at best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 02:26
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:As others have pointed out, if Mitch doesn't bring appointment to a vote, they can be telling the truth but also unwilling to do anything about Mitch other than say they are "very concerned". What are they 1 point away from unlocking the "Bipartisan" achievement? Generally you lie to gain something and you still haven't answered "why bother lying about it?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
Despera posted:What are they 1 point away from unlocking the "Bipartisan" achievement? Generally you lie to gain something and you still haven't answered "why bother lying about it?" They don't even have to lie, as I said. Both play the "reasonable Republican" game, and that's mostly for internal party power and ego tripping, like most politics, as well as reelection in Collin's case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/Taniel/status/1333998241201999872 There's obviously a difference in the caliber of the races here but also “Democrats don’t turn out for runoffs” is kind of an iron law of politics... If I say the Rs win by 3 in January, would you take the over or under? Also, do you think there will be much of a difference in the vote totals and share between the two races? Myself, I do not, obviously .
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 06:51
|
|
|
zoux posted:
This chart looks like it should be useful for examining gerrymandering effects but I think it's not really apples to apples. The chart implies that the ratio of popular vote to house seat is fixed otherwise it doesn't make any sense to compare the two using margin of popular vote. What it appears to show is that when the Dems have a majority of the popular vote they have a majority of the seats and when they are in the minority of the popular vote margin they have the minority number of seats. Which at a surface level sounds correct, being based on proportional representation the party with more popular sentiment should hold the majority in the house. However: If seat A represents 900,000 people and seat B represents 300,000 people then it's pretty clear that seat A has to have more popular votes and thus a higher percentage of the popular vote total awarded to it's party. In the example case of only those two seats where if both were won by a 51% majority in their district the seat A party would have a popular vote margin of .5% (with 606,000 to 594,000 of 1.2 million total votes) even though both seats were won by an equivalent percentage and had equal value. If you add a 3rd 300,000 person district, seat C, and the party of seat B wins that by 51% the seat B party would still have negative popular vote margin but 50% more seats! In essence the states themselves are gerrymandered districts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 14:44
|
|
|
I thought all congressional districts were about the same population
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
zoux posted:I thought all congressional districts were about the same population Nope. From Wikipedia: State with the most people in the average district: Montana (994,416).[4] In 2000, also Montana: 905,316. State with the fewest people in the average district: Rhode Island (527,624).[4] In 2000, Wyoming: 495,304. District with the most people: Montana at-large (994,416).[4] In 2000, also Montana at-large: 905,316. District with the fewest people: Rhode Island's 1st (526,283).[5] In 2000, Wyoming at-large: 495,304.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/Taniel/status/1333998241201999872 Yet we saw demographic destiny and 'turnout favors dems' fall this year as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Nope. From Wikipedia: This appears to be an artifact of one-representative states, given that Montana and Wyoming appear repeatedly (which I believe are the largest and smallest one-representative state, respectively). For states with multiple representatives it should be roughly equal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:Yet we saw demographic destiny and 'turnout favors dems' fall this year as well. Yeah every election I find I know less and less about politics. Excited to see which of my current preconceptions are wrong on January 5! https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1334142044483280901 The conclusion to this article seems correct quote:In seeking to explain why Biden racked up a gaudy electoral-vote total but Democrats performed poorly in the Senate and House, there have been all sorts of theories — one common one being that voters, anticipating a Biden win, preemptively voted Republican for Congress to give Biden some checks and balances. But as we have seen, there just isn’t much evidence for that. The vast majority of voters voted the same way for president and Congress, and while there were undoubtedly some people who split their tickets between Biden and congressional Republicans, there were also some who split their tickets between Trump and congressional Democrats. I remember people tweeting that they'd never seen a party as miserable after winning the WH as the Dems this year - and I think it 100% has to do with expectations: for a Senate majority, for a seat gain in the house, for a wide repudiation of Trump, for the GOP facing electoral consequences for their sycophantic support of an obviously monstrous and amoral man. That didn't happen, or at least not to the degree we expected or hoped it would. I think the high-level view of the electoral dynamics over the last 4 years is that the Dems massively overperformed in Trump districts in '18 and had an "artificially" large majority, and then they lost a bunch of those seats when Trump was on the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This appears to be an artifact of one-representative states, given that Montana and Wyoming appear repeatedly (which I believe are the largest and smallest one-representative state, respectively). For states with multiple representatives it should be roughly equal. Also 2-rep ones like Rhode Island.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1334142044483280901 evilweasel posted:This appears to be an artifact of one-representative states, given that Montana and Wyoming appear repeatedly (which I believe are the largest and smallest one-representative state, respectively). For states with multiple representatives it should be roughly equal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
What're the largest and smallest ones
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
zoux posted:What're the largest and smallest ones
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah every election I find I know less and less about politics. Excited to see which of my current preconceptions are wrong on January 5! I don't have the data to prove it yet, but I strongly suspect that all of the change is based on media bubbles. "Democrats want to kill you and everyone you love and Trump has actually created a utopia for you" aren't fringe anymore, they're mainstream and when millions of people believe Trump was a good and effective president and Biden eats babies at pedo-parties, people are going to turn out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
I agree that polarization and isolation of media consumption is a massive factor. I don't know if this is a scalable microcosm or an exception (I strongly supsect the former) but a June 2017 study of Twitter interactions demonstrated that there was almost no crossover between the two spheres.  We also see, repeatedly, surveys of individuals showing wildly varing perceptions of the world based on what news they consume, here's one example from an April 2020 Pew study  Of course, we know that in the media spectrum starting out dead center and heading out to the far right, Fox is probably about in the middle, if note towards the center, compared to Newsmax and OANN, and much more so than Facebook or the other medium-exposure sites commonly going viral on Facebook. So far it's the only thing that can explain how absolutely polarized the response to Trump's covid response is, and how just about half the country lives in a world where it's great, and the other half lives in the a world where it's indisputably the worst in the world (scientists refer to this world as "the real one"), and they vote accordingly. Obviously it's more complicated than a single issue, but similar partisan gaps due to media bubbles likely exist for every political and cultural issue. I have no idea what to do about it, maybe repealing 230 so that social media dies off is actually the best plan! But I don't see how this dynamic is sustainable and it only seems to be becoming more entrenched.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
I feel like a bad feeling I had about the swings might've been right to be concerned. Like the idea that a 2018 district that was +5 D but was +15R in 2016 or something might have just been an anomaly and not evidence that other districts that were recently like +2 R are possibly swing districts rather than merely being anomalous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:Yet we saw demographic destiny and 'turnout favors dems' fall this year as well. Yep, hopefully this year helps end the myth that all non-voters are Democrats in waiting, and that anyone with brown skin is a Democrat by default. I do buy "demographics are destiny" if we're talking about age though. Voting turnout over age has pretty good data behind it, and stickiness of voter preference over age does as well. Historically, there hasn't been a divide in partisanship vs age, so we've never had a situation like we will soon. There is unprecedented liberal lean for Millenials and Gen Z. Populations have tended to "turn more conservative" as they age because financially secure people tend to live longer. It's not that the individuals turn more conservative. 40 is the most powerful voting age, because it's the peak crossover point of increasing turnout without age and decreasing population for a given age cohort. 2020 is kinda early, only the eldest Millenials were 40. I think the real crossover point will be when the median Millennial is 40, so I guess that's like 2026?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 14:58
|
|
|
zoux posted:So far it's the only thing that can explain how absolutely polarized the response to Trump's covid response is, and how just about half the country lives in a world where it's great, and the other half lives in the a world where it's indisputably the worst in the world (scientists refer to this world as "the real one"), and they vote accordingly. Obviously it's more complicated than a single issue, but similar partisan gaps due to media bubbles likely exist for every political and cultural issue. I have no idea what to do about it, maybe repealing 230 so that social media dies off is actually the best plan! But I don't see how this dynamic is sustainable and it only seems to be becoming more entrenched. Isn't the (conservative) issue with 230 is that if you show a reasonable effort at policing false or harmful content then the host is not responsible for the material? Without 230 either the providers have to strongly moderate everything or make no attempt at moderation at all? I don't know if there is a 'gotcha' in the moderate nothing route that makes it impossible (like maybe spam attacks?) to actually go that route. That where we are at as a community is that the President of the US is upset that his preferred method of communication routinely calls him a liar, and half the population sees that as a problem with the host rather than the source, is really, really concerning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 15:30
|
|
|
Probably like zero of the rally-going, lock-em-up, Trump supporters have a clue what 230 is, I don't think it's a rallying cry or anything. It's obviously a ref working angle but I don't know why they're dissatisfied with social media given that it's cemented their base into believing whatever they want them to. Either Trump is really that mad about people making fun of him on Twitter (possible) or by getting rid of 230 it will help him start his TV channel or media company in a few months. The Ted Cruzes and Josh Hawleys just like whining about mods, it often strikes me how similar congressional hearings on social media are to QCS thread slap fights. All that to say: I don't know what the exact sinister ulterior motive certain portions of the conservative online movement have with 230 besides they get banned on twitter for saying death threats and horrible racism. It may just be that. I don't know that 230 has anything to do with that, but they think it does. https://twitter.com/kkondik/status/1334508863576551425  Also seems like the good people of Georgia aren't buying what the Trump campaign is selling, which is probably good news if you're a republican because what they're selling right now is "don't vote in the runoffs". Be interesting to see what the big boy himself says on Saturday. https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1334509428549312512 zoux fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I don't know if there is a 'gotcha' in the moderate nothing route that makes it impossible (like maybe spam attacks?) to actually go that route. Yeah, if you look at any old blog where someone left the comments on but abandoned it, there are 5 million spam comments on every post
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kkondik/status/1334508863576551425?s=19
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 15:59
|
|
|
I wonder what the pretty sizable gap between Ossoff and Warnock's margins is about, assuming this poll is even close to accurate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
paternity suitor posted:Yep, hopefully this year helps end the myth that all non-voters are Democrats in waiting, and that anyone with brown skin is a Democrat by default. Someone in the US who is 35 has no real memories of the Soviet Union aside perhaps noticing the maps change in elementary school; the first president they probably remember was Clinton, when he was popular. The first election they probably paid to was either Bush v Gore, was a junior or senior in high school when the Iraq War started, and their first opportunity to vote was in the 2004 primaries and general. The 2008 crash happened right as the typical 35 yo college student was finishing their undergrad degree and has experienced the full brunt of that ever since, along with everyone else that followed. Someone who is 35 was hit at exactly the wrong time by all the wrong things and has only ever experienced Democratic presidents when they were either nationally popular or popular among their cohort. However, more importantly perhaps, people age 35 and younger have no meaningful experience with the Soviet Union as a geopolitical enemy. So much of the GOP attacks on Democrats was successful by my estimation because the GOP equated their economic disagreements with the Democrats with the broader struggle between a Capitalist USA and a Socialist USSR. Socialism was the enemy, Democrats were socialist, therefore Democrats were un-American. That line of attack is only effective, however, if they grew up knowing the USSR as the great enemy that's oppressing Eastern Europe and might just nuke the US at any time. Someone older than 35 might have either experienced or was taught that. Someone younger than 35 never had the chance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
Rea posted:I wonder what the pretty sizable gap between Ossoff and Warnock's margins is about, assuming this poll is even close to accurate. That could be down to demographics/identity politics. To me, Ossoff isn't as charismatic and he screams "elite, suburban white guy." Ossoff seems to be tacking very centrist too to appease the suburbs. Given how much of the Democratic base in Georgia is still African-American, I could see how that might be dragging Ossoff's numbers down a bit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah every election I find I know less and less about politics. Excited to see which of my current preconceptions are wrong on January 5! I'm curious what this will look like as the congressional level count are finalized and analyzed. My assumption was that the majorly suburban counties would be where the splitting would happen. If you select suburban districts and compare to urban/rural, does that show any difference? I believe them that on average the effect was relatively small (about half a point), so if that's the case you'd have to have either urban or rural districts preferentially vote for Dem representatives compared to Biden.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 16:13
|
|
|
I personally think the dividing line is "were you established in the workforce when 9/11 happened" so there's a little room to fudge on exact age. But when I went into college the job market was booming and everyone was like "if you got a college degree, man you will get a job so easily and be set for life" and four years later after the dotcom bubble burst and 9/11 happened, well y'all know what it's been like since then. (Also I don't wanna be in generation x ) All that to say if you were 19 when 9/11 happened and had a well-paying, blue-collar job you probably had a much different experience with your career than someone who was 20 or 21 and still in college when it happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
Rea posted:I wonder what the pretty sizable gap between Ossoff and Warnock's margins is about, assuming this poll is even close to accurate. Having both at 50% or higher should be encouraging for Dems at least. zoux posted:I personally think the dividing line is "were you established in the workforce when 9/11 happened" so there's a little room to fudge on exact age. But when I went into college the job market was booming and everyone was like "if you got a college degree, man you will get a job so easily and be set for life" and four years later after the dotcom bubble burst and 9/11 happened, well y'all know what it's been like since then. (Also I don't wanna be in generation x ) All that to say if you were 19 when 9/11 happened and had a well-paying, blue-collar job you probably had a much different experience with your career than someone who was 20 or 21 and still in college when it happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
Rea posted:I wonder what the pretty sizable gap between Ossoff and Warnock's margins is about, assuming this poll is even close to accurate. I'd personally tend to assume difference in candidate strength, but that could be on either side (or both). Perdue is an incumbent and Loeffler had a not particularly friendly primary fight and is particularly Trumpy, so all else being equal I'd expect Perdue to do somewhat better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
Rea posted:I wonder what the pretty sizable gap between Ossoff and Warnock's margins is about, assuming this poll is even close to accurate. I think it’s because Warnock is the strongest candidate and Loeffler is the weakest. It’s just that simple. The more I’ve seen of Warnock the more I like him. Loeffler isn’t a real incumbent and I think she’s pretty terrible as a candidate. Ossoff and Purdue are pretty standard white noise stand ins for generic D and R.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
Yeah - Warnock's instantly more compelling as a candidate than Ossoff. Imagine if they were running against each other in a primary: would anyone here be more enthused about Ossoff than Warnock?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
Rea posted:I wonder what the pretty sizable gap between Ossoff and Warnock's margins is about, assuming this poll is even close to accurate. Loeffler had her scandals break earlier and was only appointed rather than elected so I wouldn't be surprised if she has worse favorables than Perdue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 16:51
|
|
|
NY Nate Sez: gently caress Polls https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1334523902064807937 But yeah he has a good point we just did a massive poll of actual voters less than a month ago, why would we expect to see such swings? NYT put out that story about how Perdue does 2000 stock trades a day but that's both too early to show poll effects and also completely unlikely to have any impact on the race because apparently voters don't care about anything but party and personality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
zoux posted:I personally think the dividing line is "were you established in the workforce when 9/11 happened" so there's a little room to fudge on exact age. But when I went into college the job market was booming and everyone was like "if you got a college degree, man you will get a job so easily and be set for life" and four years later after the dotcom bubble burst and 9/11 happened, well y'all know what it's been like since then. (Also I don't wanna be in generation x ) All that to say if you were 19 when 9/11 happened and had a well-paying, blue-collar job you probably had a much different experience with your career than someone who was 20 or 21 and still in college when it happened. I'd say 2008 was really the final nail in the coffin to all that as well. We let banks gamble with other people's money and then when they lost it all we bailed them out because we need that whale in the casino to keep it running. We didn't learn anything from what happened in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 16:57
|
|
