|
Nevvy Z posted:Going from 08' 09' on is the general shift from red to blue a difference in who they are choosing to deport, or what pretense to do it under? It's counting "people turned away at the border itself" as a deportation.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
mugrim posted:I will believe it when I see it. Most of the demo breakdowns I've seen don't account for political changes as people get older and have kids as well as how many people emigrate to the state from other red states. I'm fairly certain the source of most of the hub ub about Texas's glorious purple state status is from campaigners and PACs that have convinced the Democrats that it's totally worth it to hire people in Texas. this isn't actually a thing that happens, HTH
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Salvor_Hardin posted:It helps that inaction works to their advantage. Seriously being the party that says government sucks makes it so much easier to govern since bad results work in your favour. They don't see it that way though. The right wing in America has built for itself an alternate reality, and the primary split in the republican party seems to be between those who see this reality as a convenient fiction to get votes and those who live in it. The later group is not content to sit around and play the long game; they demand action now. They have no concept of compromise - Obama and democrats are evil to them and there's no bargaining with the devil. They will accept nothing less that unilateral concessions from the democrats, and when they don't get them they primary the RINOs that "sold them out." I can't see how these two factions can continue to coexist in the same party - eventually one of them has to win or the party has to split.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:this isn't actually a thing that happens, HTH Do you have a source? I'm more than happy to accept that, but I've never seen information to show that. I'm wondering how that's even possible, because if we assume the older white generation is roughly voting republican at the same rate as before, how do you explain candidates like Carter and Clinton? Even accounting for it, I still have a very very hard time imagining this state blue or even purple, especially with the VRA being overturned. In my district, I was kept from voting for "ID violations" in a major mayoral run off race. Despite having registered and voted for the main election and the pollster knowing that and being able to look up my registration, because my drivers license had a different address than my voter registration they refused to allow me to vote. In the poorer areas people were getting the same strict ID observation. The gerrymandering here is easily some of the strongest in the nation. There are districts with 'arms' that extend over 100 miles despite multiple massive metro areas between points A and B like Austin and San Antonio.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
mugrim posted:In my district, I was kept from voting for "ID violations" in a major mayoral run off race. Despite having registered and voted for the main election and the pollster knowing that and being able to look up my registration, because my drivers license had a different address than my voter registration they refused to allow me to vote. In the poorer areas people were getting the same strict ID observation. Good lord, that's not good at all. My buddy had some ID problems in the recent Canadian election and they still allowed him to vote (if they hadn't, I could've taken an oath to verify his identity and residence, I'm told). I think the fact that he confirmed his identity (via a driver's license with his old address) and was already registered to vote at his current address ended up being enough. I can't imagine a system in which you could prove your identity and they'd still deny you a vote if you were registered to vote at your current address; that's just hosed up. icantfindaname posted:this isn't actually a thing that happens, HTH I can't offer any sort of study, but anecdotally it absolutely does happen. My parents went from being long-haired hippies in the 70s to being reliable Conservative voters now. I suspect it has less to do with having kids, and much more to do with having money, mind you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Do you have a source? I'm more than happy to accept that, but I've never seen information to show that. I'm wondering how that's even possible, because if we assume the older white generation is roughly voting republican at the same rate as before, how do you explain candidates like Carter and Clinton? http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/voter-conservative-aging-liberal-120119.htm http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/getting-more-liberal-with-age/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/08/upshot/how-the-year-you-were-born-influences-your-politics.html People's political views are formed when they are young and then solidify and stay the same the rest of their lives, generally. If those articles are to be believed they might even become more liberal. Gen X and late Baby Boomers seem to have been overwhelmingly Reaganite conservatives from the start of their political careers, and they've remained that way ever since Carter was the last gasp of the Southern Democrats, was not exceptionally liberal despite what the right would like you to believe, and portrayed himself as a Washington outsider to a country shocked by Watergate. He then got stomped by Reagan who consolidated populist conservatism. Clinton was a white good ole boy from Arkansas who sold himself as a centrist who was fundamentally different than the last few comparatively ultraliberal Democratic candidates like Dukakis, Mondale, Humphrey Basically, the line you hear from Boomer conservatives that you're a liberal at 20 and a conservative at 40  or whatever, is complete horseshit. They were all conservatives at 20quote:In my district, I was kept from voting for "ID violations" in a major mayoral run off race. Despite having registered and voted for the main election and the pollster knowing that and being able to look up my registration, because my drivers license had a different address than my voter registration they refused to allow me to vote. In the poorer areas people were getting the same strict ID observation. I agree with this though, that the Republican stranglehold on state and local politics outside of the East and West coasts isn't going to be broken for a long time. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's counting "people turned away at the border itself" as a deportation. Hmm? That's interesting but sounds like why it jumped after Bush. I'm talking about the shift towards more criminal deportations. Are they counting more things as 'criminal' or are they making an effort to focus on deporting people committing real crimes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Hmm? That's interesting but sounds like why it jumped after Bush. I'm talking about the shift towards more criminal deportations. Are they counting more things as 'criminal' or are they making an effort to focus on deporting people committing real crimes? Oh, yeah that's a little weirder. I guess it would depend specifically on the definition of criminality, or maybe if they were deported for being a foreign national and committing a crime versus just being a foreign national.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Do you have a source? I'm more than happy to accept that, but I've never seen information to show that. I'm wondering how that's even possible, because if we assume the older white generation is roughly voting republican at the same rate as before, how do you explain candidates like Carter and Clinton? People don't always vote for the candidate that most represents their own political inclination. Reaganites in the south came up with all kinds of internal justifications for voting Carter/Clinton, and so on. Voter irrationality moots a lot of this type of demographic analysis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
That's really interesting OP, but have you considered Benghazi?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Hillary has a record level of unenthusiasm (average is around 36% "enthusiastic" among supporters) during a primary where she's supposed to get people hype enough to accept the eventual GE compromises. I mean, so long as democrats have -a- candidate for the GE it's theirs to lose, but it's far from a Done Deal, and if we've learned anything from Obama's administration is that you cannot overestimate the democrats' ability to completely sap their party of energy and optimism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Hillary has a record level of unenthusiasm (average is around 36% "enthusiastic" among supporters) during a primary where she's supposed to get people hype enough to accept the eventual GE compromises. I mean, when you have poo poo like this in the primary: quote:The program faces a long-term funding gap, and for many years, there was a rough consensus that the solution would ultimately involve both tax increases and benefit reductions to bring the program into balance. But many on the left have united to oppose any cuts to benefits and to back across-the-board benefit increases, funding them with tax increases on upper-income workers. Why the gently caress would I be excited about you in the general? Jesus Christ, you're already talking about being open to a massive bureaucracy that is inherently going to screw some people over and essentially just require more people to file for SSD to compensate, thus increasing admin costs, their pain/suffering, and ultimately making an already insanely complicated system more complicated (gridding disability will be a loving nightmare if you have variable retirement ages).
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Why the gently caress would I be excited about you in the general? Jesus Christ, you're already talking about being open to a massive bureaucracy that is inherently going to screw some people over and essentially just require more people to file for SSD to compensate, thus increasing admin costs, their pain/suffering, and ultimately making an already insanely complicated system more complicated (gridding disability will be a loving nightmare if you have variable retirement ages). The best reason to vote for Hillary is that you like her and you like her policies. The second best reason is that it'll lock in the gains that we made during the Obama administration and that the next president has an opportunity to appoint as many as 3-4 SCOTUS justices in addition to continuing to "blue" the civil service and the lower federal courts. The third best reason is that the GOP field is full of hucksters, fools, and minions who will do serious damage to the country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Hillary has a record level of unenthusiasm (average is around 36% "enthusiastic" among supporters) during a primary where she's supposed to get people hype enough to accept the eventual GE compromises. Bernie is her hype man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:The third best reason is that the GOP field is full of hucksters, fools, and minions who will do serious damage to the country. Well, yeah. They're politicians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:the next president has an opportunity to appoint as many as 3-4 SCOTUS justices in addition to continuing to "blue" the civil service and the lower federal courts It's so cool that probably-mostly-benign cronyism is by far the most relevant and material reason to swallow one's bile and put in that hypothetical Clinton vote. Clinton 2016: A Holding Action Against Oblivion
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:It's so cool that probably-mostly-benign cronyism is by far the most relevant and material reason to swallow one's bile and put in that hypothetical Clinton vote. In American politics, if we're not actively involved in destroying everything we touch it's a net gain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:In American politics, if we're not actively involved in destroying everything we touch it's a net gain. If there is any truth to this, then America must be destroyed. I don't think you've entirely thought through your political realism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 07:02
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:If there is any truth to this, then America must be destroyed. I don't think you've entirely thought through your political realism. Well, uh, yeah. Or at least the massive imperial system must be destroyed. Don't think anyone's going to care about what's left.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, uh, yeah. Or at least the massive imperial system must be destroyed. Don't think anyone's going to care about what's left. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 09:49
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:_______________________________________________\ 
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:In American politics, if we're not actively involved in destroying everything we touch it's a net gain. Willie Tomg posted:Clinton 2016: A Holding Action Against Oblivion And the counter-criticism to this is: "Heh. At least I'm living in reality, unlike these election spoiling chumps voting third party to protest the two-party system. They're living in fantasy land and are ruining it for everyone else.  "
Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:If there is any truth to this, then America must be destroyed. I don't think you've entirely thought through your political realism. That was tongue-in-cheek. I do think that things are better when we don't let the GOP have their way though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:If Hillary wins the nomination, there's no chance of her winning the election. Put her against any Republican candidate and Democrats will sit on their hands while right-wingers come out in record numbers to make sure 'anybody-but-Hillary' wins. These right-wingers who hate Hillary are dying, and Democrats actually like her. You have been spending too much time huffing right wing media farts and have come to believe in the same delusions they have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:It's so cool that probably-mostly-benign cronyism is by far the most relevant and material reason to swallow one's bile and put in that hypothetical Clinton vote. Let me tell you a story about a French presidential election. Or hell, our most recent Canadian election. Oh yes, the Greens probably had the most "progressive" platform but when the right wing party brings in Lyndon Crosbie and the Koch brothers' consultants to talk about "barbaric cultural practices" and "old stock Canadians" a lot of people stop thinking in terms of glorious socialist utopias with free education real quick and shut up and vote for the Liberals. e: all it takes is a few republicans going off the reservation and talking about "legitimate rape" and "fatherless black children" and Clinton probably wins again
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Isentropy posted:Let me tell you a story about a French presidential election. Don't be stupid, the Green party is completely nuts in Canada, that's why they only won a single seat. The leader of the party supports investigations into the health effects of Wi-Fi and an investigation into chemtrails, and once wrote a whiny letter to the Queen to ask her to intervene in Canadian parliament.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:These right-wingers who hate Hillary are dying, and Democrats actually like her. You have been spending too much time huffing right wing media farts and have come to believe in the same delusions they have. Which is why I never really got "hate watching" rightwing media. You inevitably turn into the same sort of fearful wreck that the rest of their audience becomes, except the only reason you'd buy a gun is to kill yourself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:These right-wingers who hate Hillary are dying, and Democrats actually like her. You have been spending too much time huffing right wing media farts and have come to believe in the same delusions they have. I think you're vastly underestimating the number of right-wingers and their age. Also overestimating how much Democrats like her. Nearly every discussion about Hillary is on par with plugging your nose and drinking a spoonful of cod oil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Nearly every discussion about Hillary is on par with plugging your nose and drinking a spoonful of cod oil. With whom? Your conservative Facebook friends or the #feelthebern people in RSF?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I think you're vastly underestimating the number of right-wingers and their age. Also overestimating how much Democrats like her. Nearly every discussion about Hillary is on par with plugging your nose and drinking a spoonful of cod oil. I don't think so, I get pretty excited about voting for her even though she is an insider, warmonger, banker buddy etc. She is enormously competent and people want that. e: I'll bet you $100 to the respective charity of our choice that she will win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I think you're vastly underestimating the number of right-wingers and their age. Also overestimating how much Democrats like her. Nearly every discussion about Hillary is on par with plugging your nose and drinking a spoonful of cod oil. Boy do I have a thread for you!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't know how a party that has the biggest monopoly of state governments in like 100 years and the biggest majority in the house in like 60 years is somehow on the verge of collapse. Lots of wishful thinking here. Ding ding ding, we have the answer to the thread's premise right here. You're high if you think the Republicans are going to splinter over a lost Presidential election when they control the majority of government at almost every other level. SedanChair posted:These right-wingers who hate Hillary are dying, and Democrats actually like her. You have been spending too much time huffing right wing media farts and have come to believe in the same delusions they have. If Clinton loses it's going to be because of this "demographics are changing in our favor, the old bigots/conservatives/etc are dying off, all the young people are in our pocket" rhetoric that liberals love to delude themselves with, which will lead to people not voting because they think that numbers or sentiment are in their favor. It's not. Also I don't know anyone in my social circle or professional connections who likes HRC, save for the people I know who work directly for the DNC or Democrat-dependent NGOs. If nothing else, you're VASTLY underestimating how many young people are either conservative leaning, "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" or just so apathetic or uninformed as to believe that the Republicans offer a better chance at prosperity for them. Did you watch the GOP debate this week? It's well accepted that the entire GOP is crazy, but a few of them (Rubio, Fiorina, hell even Carson for a few lucid moments) toed the line of making enough sense that your average ill-informed US citizen probably nodded along with their talking points. 2016 is not nearly as in the bag as you might want to believe. Call Me Charlie posted:Nearly every discussion about Hillary is on par with plugging your nose and drinking a spoonful of cod oil. This is about where your average citizen stands on HRC. Everyone can agree that she's competent. Different groups can find some portion of her pandering that's attractive or at least pragmatically beneficial for them. But most people still just straight up dislike her, her record, her politics, and if the general election ends up being HRC vs Rubio (which is ever more likely now that Jeb is crumpling under pressure), it's going to be a much closer election than anyone will like. Keep in mind that when the general campaign begins, HRC is shooting straight back to her centrist position and any left-trending policy we're seeing now is probably going to watered down or outright ignored. How many liberals do you think that'll endear to her cause? Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:If Clinton loses it's going to be because of this "demographics are changing in our favor, the old bigots/conservatives/etc are dying off, all the young people are in our pocket" rhetoric that liberals love to delude themselves with, which will lead to people not voting because they think that numbers or sentiment are in their favor. It's not. Also I don't know anyone in my social circle or professional connections who likes HRC, save for the people I know who work directly for the DNC or Democrat-dependent NGOs. I'll bet you too. I love how newcomers think that election predictions are this kind of magic spell that affects the outcome. News flash: only one side in this race has devolved into epistemic closure, and it ain't the democrats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Clinton has like 80% favorability amongst Democrats. If none of the people you know like her, it's likely because your circle of friends is incredibly male, white and middle class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
man it's a shame we've had a Republican president these last 8 years, because of how Democratic voters are apathetic/don't exist and the right is motivated more
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Everybody I know calls Michelle Obama a Wookiee!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Clinton has like 80% favorability amongst Democrats. If none of the people you know like her, it's likely because your circle of friends is incredibly male, white and middle class. I'm a 30 year old, college educated black dude from a working class family. My social circle is mostly minority, evenly split between men and women, mostly working class, and varying levels of education. The people I know who like HRC tend to be older folks who voted for and lived through the first Clinton presidency, or middle class white people. Everyone else is either apathetic to her or mostly dislikes her. Better luck with your guesses next time though. Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
the right is literally doing the "nobody I know voted for Nixon  " thing, as usual without even the slightest hint of self-awareness
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:I'm a 30 year old, college educated black dude from a working class family. My social circle is mostly minority, evenly split between men and women, mostly working class, and varying levels of education. The people I know who like HRC tend to be older folks who voted for and lived through the first Clinton presidency, or middle class white dudes. Everyone else is either apathetic to her or mostly dislikes her. I only said likely and I stick to it. You situation is statistically really anomalous. Either that or everyone you know undersells their support of Clinton to avoid long speeches about Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Why do you presume that because I don't like HRC (for substantive reasons) that I MUST be a Sanders devotee?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:41
|
|