|
The idea that Republicans want to be left alone is false. They are all hierarchical and want to be in the top group. Being on top feels like being left alone because you have power to ignore those below you.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
whydirt posted:The idea that Republicans want to be left alone is false. They are all hierarchical and want to be in the top group. Being on top feels like being left alone because you have power to ignore those below you. Their base is full of people who were already on top and want to be left alone to stay on top? At this point, maybe this is all a matter of perspective and life experience. I might be too colored by my own experiences growing up in a very Republican county in a (at the time) Republican state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Their base is full of people who were already on top and want to be left alone to stay on top? In racial terms, absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
whydirt posted:The idea that Republicans want to be left alone is false. They are all hierarchical and want to be in the top group. Being on top feels like being left alone because you have power to ignore those below you. yeah "left alone" is maybe too broad a generalization. it's more "i don't want me, personally, to be prevented from doing what i want," which is definitely aided by being higher in the hierarchy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:15
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:yeah "left alone" is maybe too broad a generalization. it's more "i don't want me, personally, to be prevented from doing what i want," which is definitely aided by being higher in the hierarchy. Oh that is 100% their real message, yeah. I mean that's the issue with face masks, as simple as being told to do anything ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
One way to understand the division is basically that the Democrats are a classically conservative party, in that they want to mostly conserve the status quo but gradually implement reforms over time, and the Republicans are a reactionary party, in that they don't want to conserve the status quo, they want to actively revert the status quo to a perceived previous state of affairs that was more favourable to them. The problem for both these groups is that in the American two-party system, both of those by necessity have to be big tent concepts. The Democrats have to unite together the most conservative conservatives (i.e. the people who most want the status quo to remain unchanged, but who don't want to make it actively worse) with the most reformist reformers (i.e. the people campaigning for the most change to the status quo, along multiple different lines), and the Republicans have to unite reactionaries of all stripes: economic reactionaries, racial reactionaries, gender reactionaries, and more. Some of those reactionary groups are ones who want to return to what they imagine was a more libertarian understanding of government (government leaves me alone by cutting my taxes and reducing regulations so I can kill my workers with impunity, government goes back to a time when it was weak enough that it couldn't force me to wear a face mask, etc.), but some of them want to return to what they imagine was a more interventionist understanding of government (government enforces my social beliefs on everyone else, government exists to improve the fortunes of white people, etc.). Both the parties end up as big tents, but they're uniting very different groups within very different tents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:23
|
|
|
Mathematically our system will always reduce down to two parties which will always mean bugfuck coalitions because people aren't on one axis. Like what if you're turbo racist but love the environment but hate immigrants but think guns should be illegal. That's some group of people out there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
Pick posted:Mathematically our system will always reduce down to two parties which will always mean bugfuck coalitions because people aren't on one axis. Like what if you're turbo racist but love the environment but hate immigrants but think guns should be illegal. That's some group of people out there. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
Both parties are, as pointed out many times, are coalitions of disparate groups. The groups in the GOP seem to me to be generally happy with the others getting what they want, though there are obviously limits. The rich want low taxes, the Christian conservatives want to ban abortion, the libertarians want small government. The rich are okay with smaller government as long as it funnels subsidies to them, and can afford abortions in private clinics, and so on. The Democratic coalition just seems more at loggerheads, playing a zero-sum game, leading to situations where Biden is telling civil-rights leaders to keep a lid on things until the Senate runoffs are done, because he thinks 'Defund the Police' rips apart the Biden voter coalition. (I am giving Biden the benefit of the doubt and that he really does believe this to be true.). I'm not sure the same thing comes up in the same way in the GOP, short of Fred Phelps type stuff. You can have a Trump rally where speakers can come out and rant about high taxes, abortion, and big government, and nobody feels attacked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
I don't think both sides of "the Democratic coalition is fragile because of policy but the Republican coalition is stable because of lib ownership" can be true. We just had two elections where the Republicans lost the presidency, the house, and maybe the senate, largely because their margins collapsed in traditionally Republican suburbs. It's unclear how much of that was because of traditionally Republican voters switching party, but if they aren't then the Democratic coalition has to be more stable to compensate. Republicans losing suburbs isn't a Trump specific thing either, it's been going on for 20+ years but Trump accelerated it some and a lot of counties happened to flip from red to blue in 2016 and 2020. I think online gives a misleading impression. I'm not sure there are any Republicans on D&D at all. On this site, Twitter, or to some extent progressive media the anti-Democratic-party left is one of the most vocal groups, but as far as I can tell they're completely irrelevant in US politics. People who support more progressive candidates in primaries still vote overwhelmingly for mainstream Democrats and Ilhan Omar is happy with the Biden transition. On the Republican side a majority of their elected officials are publicly endorsing QAnon level conspiracy nonsense not because they believe it but because they're afraid that anything else would turn off Trump diehards (who were a minority of 2016 primary voters, at least). It's unclear whether they'll lose votes for it, but they've already been losing votes for nominating Trump in the first place. Obviously the coup situation is really bad, but elected Republicans signaling that they'd do a coup to please a minority of their base doesn't make them sound too confident in their base.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
It also likely backfires because if they don't or fail to do a coup than what good are they anyways and support will shift to whoever will say and do what they demand, until the themselves fail the purity test.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
Ironically I think the current Democratic coalition is likely to hold as long as the Republican one keeps its current form. "They're killing us" tends to be a pretty decent unifier
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
Republicans doubling down on Trumpism in the wake of defeat instead of immediately kicking Trump off the GOP Island really is something I wasn't expecting and I think is going to do wonders in keeping people engaged. Now the open question is which coalition will continue to turnout in mid terms, I can see the argument that without a clear Trump like figure running for office, with Republicans continuing to be cartoonishly evil just without the figurehead, that Democrats continue to turn out while Republicans maybe stay home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:
I mean, also the Biden online strategy was literally "Twitter isn't real life", and lo and behold twitter mostly was not real life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
With the absolute insanity tonight of the GOP declaring war on itself and the Supreme Court as "No True Conservative" swings into high gear, do we think this helps our chances in Georgia to take both seats? I don't see possibly how the GOP base turns out for 2 uninspiring dipshits when Dear Leader has fallen and the Supreme Court that they fought so hard to get control over are traitors TulliusCicero fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Dec 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:With the absolute insanity tonight of the GOP declaring war on itself and the Supreme Court as "No True Conservative" swings into high gear, do we think this helps our chances in Georgia to take both seats? I would 100% never underestimate the willingness of Republicans to act against the public good. Republicans turn out for horrendous and deeply uncharismatic candidates all the time. They suck it up because they recognize the power of party politics. With the boatload of cash that Loeffler and Purdue have already raised, I think there's little doubt they'll be able to navigate some moderately troubled waters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 04:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Republicans doubling down on Trumpism in the wake of defeat instead of immediately kicking Trump off the GOP Island really is something I wasn't expecting and I think is going to do wonders in keeping people engaged. If I was the GOP, I would expect Trump to be charged, arrested and prosecuted for various types of crimes. This is a given his history and current on-going investigations especially that are only waiting for him lose executive privilege. He's likely to be found guilty but to the GOP that's irrelevant they use all the anger it generates to further energize their base.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
Oh hey look, a permanent schism between the GOP and Chuds is potentially a thing now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkBMAHUkibY
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:I don't think both sides of "the Democratic coalition is fragile because of policy but the Republican coalition is stable because of lib ownership" can be true. We just had two elections where the Republicans lost the presidency, the house, and maybe the senate, largely because their margins collapsed in traditionally Republican suburbs. It's unclear how much of that was because of traditionally Republican voters switching party, but if they aren't then the Democratic coalition has to be more stable to compensate. Republicans losing suburbs isn't a Trump specific thing either, it's been going on for 20+ years but Trump accelerated it some and a lot of counties happened to flip from red to blue in 2016 and 2020. You are right, both sides can't be true. If you go to an insane conservative site, they believe that Democrats are all in lock step to turn the country into a communist junta. The idea that there's any kind of friction between various wings of the Democratic coalition doesn't even occur to them. Similarly on this website, the idea that a libertarian free marketer and a rural Christian Trumper have nothing in common and basically hate each other is dismissed because they both "want to be left alone", which is just as laughable as conservatives thinking all Democrats want the same thing. We're at a point where the coalitions are moving around, and both sides are looking across the table at their fellow party members and wondering why they're with them in the first place. I think it's a good thing. For example, while I don't full buy it, if Republicans think they're making inroads with minorities that's great news. If they do anything positive towards racial issues even as a cynical response to win voters, who cares, it's a positive move. And if Democrats see that, they'll have to respond by actually doing things rather than paying lip service. There's a reason Jesse Jackson met with Republicans in the 70's and 80's and tried to convince them to court the black vote. When a group isn't considered a competitive voting block they get ignored by *both* parties. So if the coalitions are breaking up and groups are up for grabs, we might see some legislative movement on issues that have been stuck for years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 10:09
|
|
|
NaanViolence posted:What is the wonkish response to the fact that humans no longer have the ability to do accurate political polling in the US? Is anybody actually redoing polling from the ground up like it needs? Bone divination
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 14:21
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:With the absolute insanity tonight of the GOP declaring war on itself and the Supreme Court as "No True Conservative" swings into high gear, do we think this helps our chances in Georgia to take both seats? For as much hemming and hawing you see on Twitter, even the most die hard Trump supporters know that the GA runoff is the last hope to keep the senate and “save the republic from total socialist takeover”. They’ll turn out enthusiastically and will vote for anyone with an R next to their name. It’s just about turning out Ds again in strong numbers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
The average Republican voter is not posting on Donald.win, and I wouldn't necessarily take things from explicitly political websites and extend them too broadly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
DutchDupe posted:Bone divination Pssh, yeah, if you're a hack. The order of accuracy goes: Weighted rolling averages of haruspicies Weighted rolling averages of auguries Haruspicy Auspicy Oenomancy Osteomancy. You can't even make useful weightings of osteomancies because the bones lose weight as they dry out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
Centurium posted:Pssh, yeah, if you're a hack. Who could have predicted that, in the end, the most accurate measure was a gut feeling all along  followed, of course, by tweets
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
I'm surprised to not even see Georgia polls covered in the media; polls seem really on the outs. I think Nate was wrong by saying "well, it was only a normal polling error, like last time" because it ends up being very significant if they're wrong in the same direction multiple times, despite accounting for bias. They made the point that a 2020 Biden +4 was a 2016 Biden +8, but in reality it was a Biden +/-0. Like if you're having to adjust by 8 points for ?? reasons you can't stay in front of?? you're dubiously useful. Pick fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Dec 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
Pick posted:I'm surprised to not even see Georgia polls covered in the media; polls seem really on the outs. It's just not that relevant for this race. We already know the size of the electorate for both sides is almost identical, verified by the actual November election and the first poll after that. In two months time it's just a matter of both sides turning out and/or registering any new voters. Trying to model how much Trump voters decline to show up because of lessened enthusiasm because the Supreme Court thing fizzled out or Trump not being on the ballot or being pissed at the GOP, or how much new Dem registrations come into play, or how much Dem turnout drops off because they're NOT voting against Trump and because it's a runoff, is a guessing game at best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
Reality Protester posted:How often has a vice president won person of the year? Technically Dick Cheney won in 2006, but other than that, never.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:Technically Dick Cheney won in 2006, but other than that, never. Joe Biden is a vice president.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 08:53
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Joe Biden is a vice president. Question on this.... how did the USA's habit of addressing former politicans with the highest title they were elected to come about? To me Biden would be a former VP and you would only refer that title to the current holder
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 09:33
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:Question on this.... how did the USA's habit of addressing former politicans with the highest title they were elected to come about? people keeping their highest title in american politics is a recent tradition, maybe since the 90s and gingrich wanting to be called speaker after he left
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 10:25
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:people keeping their highest title in american politics is a recent tradition, maybe since the 90s and gingrich wanting to be called speaker after he left It has been around for military ranks for at least 250 years, and I think kind of bled over from there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 10:36
|
|
|
I am having a hard time finding the article but an op-ed penned what I thought was a good analysis of why Sara Gideon lost Maine. Ostensibly, they put it at the feet of going going to the DSCC and using their consultants to run the election. They flooded the market with negative ads and lots of negative mail and it turned people against Gideon. I am somewhat inclined to agree with this as I have seen it happen before. When you are running elections, you have to stay local and give reasons for people to vote for you not against the other person. When you come off as a Washington run campaign you risk looking like you are disconnected from what's going on in your state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:22
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:It has been around for military ranks for at least 250 years, and I think kind of bled over from there. I think that retired military officers aren't actually out of the system, they are on an inactive reserve status and can be called back to duty if need arises and so can be referred to by rank in formal situations. I think also that it's traditional for former ambassadors to retain the recognition of being referred to as 'ambassador' in official correspondence going back hundreds of years even when they no longer hold the post. Of course, 200 years ago being an ambassador was a big deal with a lot of autonomy in representing your government with the host when oversight was possibly months away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 14:52
|
|
|
Early in-person voting has commenced for Georgia's runoffs. Can anybody there confirm the volume of early votes yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Early in-person voting has commenced for Georgia's runoffs. Can anybody there confirm the volume of early votes yet? https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/GA_RO.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Number, y'all. https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1338613653554290688
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
That's some good number, y'all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
That last number is especially  Like, I'm glad they went the right way, and I get a hearty lol at Trump setting this particular record, but it also kinda makes me wanna aspirate vomit
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:That last number is especially They filed a new one today in New Mexico (  ) so it'll probably be at least a round 60 before Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
 https://twitter.com/gtryan/status/1338824661946277888
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 15:14
|
|