|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I think you missed the point. No, I understand your point; I just don't think it's a huge chasm to see a 25-percent difference between "it's very lovely out there" and "my personal situation is lovely or very lovely," particularly given inflation.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:But this is mirrored by Dem voters; you can see the lines in the graphs literally cross each other & move in opposite directions beginning in Jan. 2021 as to whether a party's voters thought the economy was doing well or poorly. Only 30% of Dems think the overall economy is doing "fairly" or "very" well right now, but their personal economic situation stats are still very different. So, it isn't an issue of Democrats' partisan perception of the economy, because they 2:1 say it is bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Could it correspond to a greater sense of precarity? "Sure, my situation is good now, but that could change at any moment, so I would describe the economy overall as quite bad." This would be my guess. That said, that's been the case for a long time, but so many businesses and livelihoods imploded in the last 5 years that I wouldn't be surprised if that precarity is felt much, much more strongly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
MadJackal posted:The Internet Leftist hot takes are that the Democrats are magically responsible for the overturn of Roe v Wade, while mainstream Democrats were saying all along, "If you give these nuts any amount of power, bad things will happen." Internet leftists lost in 2016. You got what you wanted with Hillary, not only did she win the nomination, she got more votes than anyone ever until it happened again when you got what you wanted with Biden. You loving dipshit libs keep getting the outcome you want out of the conflict with leftists and when your own choices result in bad outcomes you get mad at the people who had the audacity to want something better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Only 30% of Dems think the overall economy is doing "fairly" or "very" well right now, but their personal economic situation stats are still very different. So, it isn't an issue of Democrats' partisan perception of the economy, because they 2:1 say it is bad. It may not just be Repubs who lie on polls "I'm doing fine but I see people struggling" is a rather common idea at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Only 30% of Dems think the overall economy is doing "fairly" or "very" well right now, but their personal economic situation stats are still very different. So, it isn't an issue of Democrats' partisan perception of the economy, because they 2:1 say it is bad. I think you misunderstood my point, which was that overall sentiment about how the economy is doing usually tracks by voter party preference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Please don't ever be my doctor. I don't go to the teddy bear clinic so I'll be fine but drat this is dumb. I'm amazed that you haven't taken the CSPAM conspiracy route that I never was one. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Here's one of the graphs I was talking about; this one's notable bc of the decline among voters of both parties over the last year but the criss-cross effect is still clear:
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Has anyone other than AOC mentioned impeaching the justices that lied under oath on Roe. ? If not, why not? For any power, left or right, that had a serious power project, this would be a once-in-a-lifetime gift: three lifelong seats that you get to try and flip, all at once! And if you fail, at least you showed your base you have some fight in you. I'd argue that it doesn't need to be perjury to be impeachable. Being misleading should be enough to disqualify a supreme court justice - they should be held to the ultimate standards in our society because they are given the most power with the least conditions. They should be able to communicate their positions with absolute clarity. So unambigious and unnuanced that even Joe Manchin and Susan Collins wouldn't be 'surprised' by it's ramifications. So I'd shoot for perjury charges on any of them that are still under statute just for the theatre of it (I think it's just 2 or 3?), and then I'd pursue impeachment on all of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
Impeachment requires a 2/3rds Senate vote. I know this has been explained multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
Weird that Dems squandered so much time on it then, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:42
|
|
|
MadJackal posted:The Internet Leftist hot takes are that the Democrats are magically responsible for the overturn of Roe v Wade, while mainstream Democrats were saying all along, "If you give these nuts any amount of power, bad things will happen." If the USA turns into some sort of Gilead, the 2016 will be looked at the most consequential election in the last 100 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
The GOP is literally; handing the Democrats a ticket to reversing the typical losses in the midterm: https://twitter.com/mmpadellan/status/1541116556733726722 Run a national campaign against every Republican running in the midterms that basically has those quotes about a “national ban” and mix that with Handmaiden’s Tale dystopian stuff. Sort of in the vein of LBJ’s classic punch in the gut “Daisy” ad and make it clear that if the GOP wins the midterms they are going to turn America into a theocratic hellscape. ALSO: I know many will disagree, but I think the Democratic leadership should publicly admit that not going for a national law codifying RvW was a mistake (as well as not going full tilt when Mitch blocked Garland's nomination). Why should they do this? Because there’s real anger at the party over that and for the appearance of using RvW as a fundraiser rather than strong actions. Disagree, sure. But that anger is real.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:If the USA turns into some sort of Gilead, the 2016 will be looked at the most consequential election in the last 100 years. Only by people with a complete lack of understanding of how history works. It's like blaming a single bad harvest for the destruction of an empire. Most of these issues are multifaceted and are not decided by a single thing. Alongside that if the 2016 election was so vital then the system which gave the loser more votes should perhaps be interrogated further. I do hope I am not being rude when I talk about this. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Impeachment requires a 2/3rds Senate vote. I know this has been explained multiple times. I think people are aware how difficult it would be for the Senate to actually convict them as of now. But context clues shows that people are using "impeach" and "impeachment" as a shorthand for starting the process VideoGameVet posted:If the USA turns into some sort of Gilead, the 2016 will be looked at the most consequential election in the last 100 years. And then people will wonder how Hillary Clinton managed to lose to Trump and will point out all of the structural and systemic issues. I must continually reiterate that the Democrats have let abortion rights be eroded for decades. The Hyde amendment is still in place, although I must commend the House and Biden for removing it from their budget. It's the Senate that's holding that up... which seems to be normal. Also, the Parable of the Sower is much more apt for our situation than the Handmaid's Tale.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It will be interesting to see if they ever get a clear explanation for that. There was a hypothesis that people felt that "shutdowns = bad economy" or that people assumed everyone else was doing way worse than they were because of pandemic aid, but there haven't been major shutdowns or significant changes to pandemic aid for almost 2 years, so those theories seem to be out the window. Here’s the best way to think about it: Buncha places you still can’t get adequate childcare at any price. If you need that and cannot get it and your income and expenses are still fine, you think the economy is still utter poo poo. And it is because you cannot get the goods and services you consider needs. That the metrics are missing that is a problem with the metrics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:02
|
|
|
Yeah, if you're being serious about a "historical" analysis that's not clouded by biases of the time then it'd be a long section with chapters like 2000 Election Crisis - The Bush Era Reactionary Decline - Obama Squandering His Mandate - The Die Is Cast? and then the sentient cockroach students get to write essays about whether humans could have turned things around in 2020 or if things were just too doomed to change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:02
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Only by people with a complete lack of understanding of how history works. It's like blaming a single bad harvest for the destruction of an empire. Most of these issues are multifaceted and are not decided by a single thing. Alongside that if the 2016 election was so vital then the system which gave the loser more votes should perhaps be interrogated further. You're not rude. The electoral college enabled Trump to win with 3m less votes than Clinton. The structure of the Senate gives Wyoming's 579,000 inhabitants the same amount of say-so as California's 39,512,000 million. Doesn't change my thesis. Trump winning gave us the SCOTUS that is turning the USA into a place the majority of Americans do not want. And unless the Democrats stop being so f-ing concerned with DECORUM, 2025 is going to be a very bad year. The lopsided electoral/legislative structure is a fact that we have to overcome, there's no alternative path.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
Parakeet vs. Phone posted:Yeah, if you're being serious about a "historical" analysis that's not clouded by biases of the time then it'd be a long section with chapters like 2000 Election Crisis - The Bush Era Reactionary Decline - Obama Squandering His Mandate - The Die Is Cast? and then the sentient cockroach students get to write essays about whether humans could have turned things around in 2020 or if things were just too doomed to change. Global warming has to go in there as the long crisis that finally drove collapse after America ignored it for 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:08
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Internet leftists lost in 2016. You got what you wanted with Hillary, not only did she win the nomination, she got more votes than anyone ever until it happened again when you got what you wanted with Biden. No one here is a "lib" and we all probably voted for Bernie. I am to the left of 99% of the country, and I believe that we need free government healthcare for all, full amnesty for the undocumented, full reparations of $20t+ for black people and natives, and a lot of other things. The conflict for me has always been when people start advocating for not voting or voting third party. I want all of the above, and not even AOC, nor Bernie, or even a full-on communist will give me all of those things. Bernie didn't advocate for reparations nor full amnesty and mouthing the latter is a nonstarter. So, should I have not voted for Bernie in the primary? gently caress NO, that's braindead doomer poo poo. I "reluctantly" pulled the lever for Bernie, who doesn't represent all of my interests, but promised me more than the other guy. Guess what? Same with Biden vs the other guy! It's like life is a series of choices, with most being a choice between imperfect options.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Global warming has to go in there as the long crisis that finally drove collapse after America ignored it for 30 years. I spent my own $$$ building a climate game and eBook that I gave away partly in an attempt to get this into schools to counter the oil/gas funded 'climate' curriculum that is being used all over the USA. I did that just before the lockdown so not much progress, although I did get on the weather channel. Yeah, Climate Change is going to kick us hard, but it's no surprise that in states most effected (Florida as an example) the GOP leadership that runs the show there simply ignores it as their streets get flooded on sunny days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
The GOP will make insane laws that govern how parents act to the children. They'll make it impossible to live on Min wage and have a child. It's always signalling. They want to steal children and give them to their base religious supporters. If you thought rape child abuse and native American child abduction/reeducation was over? Nope now it's going to be class based.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
small butter posted:No one here is a "lib" and we all probably voted for Bernie. I am to the left of 99% of the country, and I believe that we need free government healthcare for all, full amnesty for the undocumented, full reparations of $20t+ for black people and natives, and a lot of other things. I don’t see how voting for people who want the opposite of what you want does anything. All you’re doing is lending them legitimacy. You vote for a centrist and they can turn around and say that centrism is what the people want. My question to you is do you have any standards at all? Is there a point at which you wouldn’t vote for a Democrat no matter what? Put another way, if Trump decided to run as a Democrat against DeSantis, would you vote for Trump?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
small butter posted:I think you have the cause and effect mixed up. The city does not vote for Democrats because they give them good things; Democrats give them good things because they're the majority, consistently. It starts with voting for politicians that you expect to fulfill their promises when they're in power and have the opportunity to do so. When that happens, people will vote for those politicians and that party again. When it doesn't, people will stop believing, because even if the ideas sound reasonable, there's no reason to trust they'll be implemented. In many places democrats don't have a great track record and the trust is gone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:I don’t see how voting for people who want the opposite of what you want does anything. All you’re doing is lending them legitimacy. You vote for a centrist and they can turn around and say that centrism is what the people want. But it's not opposite of what I want. It's closer to my ideal, but not my ideal. Bernie is closer than Biden, but Biden is closer than Trump. And ultimately, this poo poo affects others more than it affects me, so I also vote for others. The question is posed in a way as if I'm getting the choice between German Nazis and Italian fascists. I'm not. Biden is to the left of Obama, who was to the left of Bill Clinton. If a Democrat was worse than a Republican, and said they will not vote for, say, Speaker or Majority Leader, sure, I wouldn't vote for them. If I lived in Cellular's district, yes, I'd vote for him in the general (but not the primary) because he will otherwise get me closer to what I want by giving a majority to the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:If the USA turns into some sort of Gilead, the 2016 will be looked at the most consequential election in the last 100 years. This seems like nonsense to me. The democrats had 50 years and various supermajorities to codify RvW and they didn't do it. Do you think they would have done so if they won in 2016? Because otherwise we're just having this exact same conversation in three years, or five, or however long it takes this exact scenario to play out, probably with the exact same people in place, the only difference being the year and the degrees of senility on display RvW being overturned seems like an inevitability simply because the people who want it to happen have a plan and a will to power and the people who are supposed to prevent it and bumbling around asking for spare change and reciting poems
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
 Epic High Five posted:I think it's about time this whole thing got moved to the thread dedicated to the midterms and electoralism generally: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=4002330. Maybe some progress can be made on the debate with a little more focus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:46
|
|
|
We're not talking about the midterms though, Fritz. The RvW repeal is happening right now, is it not a current event?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:47
|
|
|
You've got a mod attacking posters directly, so it'd be cool if y'all take care of that before asking us to move discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
B B posted:You've got a mod attacking posters directly, so it'd be cool if y'all take care of that before asking us to move discussion. Actually he was posting as a poster, not a mod, and as such cannot be held accountable. Just like every other time he's done that e: Hopefully this is counted as posting about moderation instead of posting about posters so I don't get probed. Gray area!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
small butter posted:But it's not opposite of what I want. It's closer to my ideal, but not my ideal. Bernie is closer than Biden, but Biden is closer than Trump. And ultimately, this poo poo affects others more than it affects me, so I also vote for others. I don't understand. How does voting for Democrats who do not want to do the things that you want get your closer to that goal? The Dems already have a majority in the House and the Senate, but it doesn't appear we're any closer to the goals you have stated. They've had majorities before and failed to move closer on abortion rights. In fact, Pelosi stated that she believes that the Democrats should move away from ideological causes like abortion rights and trans rights because it would alienate conservative voters. That's her stating that they want to move in the opposite direction. I don't think Obama is to the left of Bill Clinton when Obama stated that he was like a 80s/90s Republican.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:50
|
|
|
MadJackal posted:The Internet Leftist hot takes are that the Democrats are magically responsible for the overturn of Roe v Wade, while mainstream Democrats were saying all along, "If you give these nuts any amount of power, bad things will happen." no it's really simple leftists just don't vote for non-leftists. It's not their fault the Democrats are center-right at best, and basically apolitical at worst, in that they mostly do nothing for anyone but themselves. It is absolutely not the job of leftists to bail out your dumb useless country because one of the parties is evil, and the one that supposed to be good is feckless, without a vision, confused about who exactly its base should be. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 00:02
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:If the USA turns into some sort of Gilead, the 2016 will be looked at the most consequential election in the last 100 years. Well maybe she should have campaigned in loving Wisconsin, but I guess the internet leftists made her ignore it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 00:05
|
|
|
If you believe in w,x,y and z and there are two candidates running, one if which also believes in x and z but not y and w, and the other candidate who doesn't believe in anything you do do you view both candidates as exactly the same? You will probably never find a candidate that holds exactly the same beliefs as you unless you yourself run. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 00:07
|
|
|
If the thread titled US Midterm Elections has been repurposed to now be the US Midterm Elections & All Other Discussions of Electoralism Past, Present and Future then maybe it needs to made clearer, as well as what parameters merit discussion in that thread rather than this one. For example, what about general polling that includes presidential approvals? I don't recall that ever having been discouraged from a CE/politics thread. Has that now changed? Or batshit ads & statements by GOP candidates running for office: sequestered to the other thread or perfectly fine here, as has been the custom? eta an example of the latter, from this thread's mod-written OP: quote:Eric Greitens, former Gov. of Missouri who resigned in disgrace 3 years ago, is running for Senate, and has a new campaign video that says to kill all RINOS. Twitter and Facebook took the video down. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jun 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
There are other ways the democrats could be fighting against the courts. They could limit their jurisdiction to certain issues. They could literally take away their staff. There are options. https://twitter.com/KBAndersen/status/1541054146626965504
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:There are other ways the democrats could be fighting against the courts. They could limit their jurisdiction to certain issues. They could literally take away their staff. There are options. Everything that the op-ed describes requires an act of congress, i.e. 50 or 60 Senate votes, except for the ones that require a constitutional amendment. Of course, it doesn't mention any of that, so we get more "they should fight!" claims unmoored from how the government works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Everything that the op-ed describes requires an act of congress, i.e. 50 or 60 Senate votes, except for the ones that require a constitutional amendment. Of course, it doesn't mention any of that, so we get more "they should fight!" claims unmoored from how the government works. Well better do nothing then. Lol (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Everything that the op-ed describes requires an act of congress, i.e. 50 or 60 Senate votes, except for the ones that require a constitutional amendment. Of course, it doesn't mention any of that, so we get more "they should fight!" claims unmoored from how the government works. Alright, so what can be done if the Democrats do not get enough Senators on board to do those things? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
Apparently one of the D&D mods is going to be taking a break for their hostility toward posters, as well as their tendency to argue by innuendo. They're not going to be officially punished (because why would they?), but they will be taking a break. Just wanted to let the rest of you know, since the mod staff seems unwilling to do so. I'm pretty sure you can guess who the mod is. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 01:06
|
|