DeusExMachinima posted:

Thread delivers a certain type of Dem self-righteously extolling the virtues of shooting themselves in the foot while explaining that they're not really shooting themselves in the foot and even if they were it doesn't really hurt. Besides even if it did hurt, shooting yourself in the foot is morally superior to being able to walk into town to do things that will help the people there right now. We can help people later because that day will definitely come after we finish shooting our feet off. History is inevitable.

falcon2424 posted:

Sure. They should work building diversity across the different subcultures in the US. Right now, the "left"/"right" division in politics -- especially in terms of normal citizen participation -- seems to mirror a cultural split.

Tell me that a blogger has a Prius, a preference for Pho over Applebee's, and a tendency to specify 'American Football' and I'll bet that they lean democratic. Tell me that another blogger has a Pickup Truck, considers Chinese-takeout to be exotic, and actively watches professional wrestling, and I'll bet that they lean to the right.

There are a number of ways that this came to be. Michael Church's essay on social class might be a good start.

But the end result is that democratic policies seem to come packaged with a bunch of irrelevant cultural trappings.

The democrats should fix this by looking for, and supporting, bloggers or activists who're coming from outside the democratic cultural bubble.

skeet decorator posted:

I'm afraid at this point I must assume you are innumerate.

code:

1986 - 1990: 9.26% decrease in black turnout, 0.6383% decrease in white turnout
1990 - 1994: 5.36% decrease in black turnout, 1.285% increase in white turnout

standard deviation from 1990 - 1994 for black voters = 1.48492
standard deviation from 1990 - 1994 for white voters = 0.424264

standard deviation from 1986 - 1994 for black voters = 3.09892
standard deviation from 1986 - 1994 for white voters = 0.30

1990 - 1994: 5.36% decrease in black turnout, 1.285% increase in white turnout

Now I already know what you're going to say, so lemme go ahead and post it for you:


Wrong, but I'm tired of doing it for you so feel free to run the numbers yourself and post here when you figure out how wrong you are. Or just stop posting. Either works.


Cool, great post! That would make an excellent topic for a gun control thread, you should start one!

Jarmak posted:

At this point I'm going to assume you're not arguing in the remotest of good faith, are you loving serious? You're taking the percentage of a percentage so that you can inflate the number just enough to say that 5% is significant.

Black turnout decreased by 2.1%, white increased by .7%

Also you're being obtuse as gently caress because you're conveniently ignoring just how badly the Democrats lost the white vote in that election, bad enough we got new terminology to to describe it bad, bad enough that not only did Republicans get a majority of white southern voters for the first time in history, they did it by 28%. White men alone went from going for the democrats 51.2% to 48.8% in 1992 to going for republicans 69.5% to 30.5% in 1994.

But yeah I'm sure that 2% decrease in black voters is what caused the historic losses, somehow not in 1992 mind you after the sharpest of the drop in turnout, but 2 years later after the drop off mellowed a bit. Must be some time delayed or something.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3595625?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

VitalSigns posted:

Well yes, appealing to white supremacists is probably a viable strategy for taking the house away from Republicans.

VitalSigns posted:

Well yes, appealing to white supremacists is probably a viable strategy for taking the house away from Republicans.

Rebrand as the Dixiecrat party.

skeet decorator posted:

I feel bad now because it seems you are actually innumerate. Let me help you out. Voter turnout is by definition a percentage, the ratio of the number of people who voted to the total number of people eligible to vote. To look at the relative change in voter turnout, you have to then take the percent difference (a percentage of a percentage). You can also look at the absolute difference, which would be measured in percentage points, that is black turnout decreased by 2.1 percentage points, not percent.

Your assertion was that voter turnout was flat amongst all races between 1990 - 1994. If your assertion were true then all races would have a fairly small standard deviation, which does not seem to be true. Oh and by the way, the units for standard deviation in this case are percentage points, which I listed right there for you. I'll admit I should have listed the units, but hey at least I didn't swap "%" for "percentage point" and then accuse you of not arguing in good faith.

Thanks for posting a link to some actual evidence, but I at no point disagreed with the idea that white southerners swung to the republicans.

Jarmak posted:

Did fishmech get a new account?

I'm seriously asking

https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/upload_library/22/Polya/Hodge2011.pdf posted:

Maceachren provides a nice summary of several such measures, classifying
them into four categories: (i) those that are based on ratios of perimeter to area;
(ii) those that compare the characteristics of circles related to the given shape (for
instance, inscribed or circumscribed circles); (iii) those that compare the given shape
to other standard shapes, such as squares or other polygons; and (iv) those that in some
way measure how far the area of the given shape is dispersed from its center. Taylor
suggests that most measures of shape compactness reflect four essentially dis-
tinct characteristics of shape: elongation, indentation, separation, and puncturedness.

skeet decorator posted:

*claims turnout was relatively flat* "Hey man why are you calculating the relative difference, that's not fair!"

Why are you still posting in this thread? The only cogent argument you've made so far has been for better math education.

DeusExMachinima posted:

Thread delivers little info on how Dems can reclaim the House.

Thread delivers a certain type of Dem self-righteously extolling the virtues of shooting themselves in the foot while explaining that they're not really shooting themselves in the foot and even if they were it doesn't really hurt. Besides even if it did hurt, shooting yourself in the foot is morally superior to being able to walk into town to do things that will help the people there right now. We can help people later because that day will definitely come after we finish shooting our feet off. History is inevitable.

You're so far from self-awareness that if the word 'introspection' was engraved on each nanoangstrom of your synapses it would not equal one one-billionth of the ignorance you've shown at this micro-instant.

If you were an AI, Dr. Turing would delete you.

Jarmak posted:

You're a loving idiot: 1) that's not what standard deviation means, 2) seriously you're calculating standard deviation with a sample size of 2!? 3) In my field standard deviation is typically used as a way to calculate error, frequently for the purposes of seeing whether the sampling size was adequate which makes (2) even more hilarious.

Jarmak posted:

Census data says everyone's turnout was relatively flat

Jarmak posted:

Secondly you're arguing over the whether the relative difference of a handful of percentage points is more relevant then the absolute difference

Jarmak posted:

Except that the democratic party actually did better with minorities in 1994 then 1990, gently caress the difference was with white males. The 1994 election was where the term "angry white males" to describe a voting block comes from. Gun control wasn't the sole driving issue but it was a major contributor to the culture war bullshit that drove that election. It's also kind of amusing you say "union members" since union members are the primary gun owning demographic in the Democratic party.


Seriously? "someone had an opinion" is the evidence you were looking for? Cause Clinton has been very openly arguing exactly the same thing I am, and the Democratic leadership (as well as Clinton and Lieberman) believed gun control lost them the 2000 election as well:


http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bill-clinton-warns-democrats-against-overreaching-on-gun-debate/


http://www.salon.com/2007/04/18/dems_and_guns/

Jarmak posted:

2% difference is relatively flat.

The fact that standard deviation is a useless measure for a sample size of two does not change because you don't have access to a larger sample size.

But please keep rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic that was your argument. In sure it was a 2% drop in black turnout not the 30% swing in white males voting republican that caused 1994.

skeet decorator posted:

Now I already know what you're going to say, so lemme go ahead and post it for you:

Jarmak posted:

But there were way more white dudes than minorities sure white people's turnout only increased slightly while minority's continued to decrease significantly, but they made up for it in absolute numbers!

Wrong, but I'm tired of doing it for you so feel free to run the numbers yourself and post here when you figure out how wrong you are. Or just stop posting. Either works.

skeet decorator posted:

Absolute and relative difference have precise definitions that you should maybe look up if you're going to use them.

VitalSigns posted:

Well yes, appealing to white supremacists is probably a viable strategy for taking the house away from Republicans.

Rebrand as the Dixiecrat party.

Jarmak posted:

Really!? This is what you're loving sperging about? That I used the term "relatively" in casual conversation as a stand in for "in the grand scheme of things" instead of doing a precise statistical analysis?

Fine you want to play robot I'll loving bite, only lets not cherry pick data this time shall we? The STDEV for black voter turnout for all years in that data is 3.58%, the mean is 39.83%, the 1994 turnout was 37.1% , or just barely more then half a standard deviation.

skeet decorator posted:

skeet decorator posted:

Now I already know what you're going to say, so lemme go ahead and post it for you:

Jarmak posted:

But there were way more white dudes than minorities sure white people's turnout only increased slightly while minority's continued to decrease significantly, but they made up for it in absolute numbers!

Wrong, but I'm tired of doing it for you so feel free to run the numbers yourself and post here when you figure out how wrong you are. Or just stop posting. Either works.

DeusExMachinima posted:

A valid argument except that dropping AWB doesn't hurt minorities because that's not what they're being shot with.

Trabisnikof posted:

This is such a joke that being anti-regulation on guns would do anything to win back the House. Allowing anti-regulation Democrats to run, sure that's one thing, but no one has named a single district where an anti-regulation Democrat can't win, but magically could if California went anti-regulation.

Whitecloak posted:

The party needs to be effective in elections outside of California. Guns don't help the Dems all that much in places like Ohio-- toning down on the guns and taking on lunch pail issues might help win back the industrial heartland. Sneers and jeers at rust belt rubes while pushing evermore offshoring doesn't win many votes round here. A challenger who pushed protectionism in a serious and muscular way, regardless of party, would secure the entire region.

And unsure it would help in the near term, but a real plan to eliminate student loans would make a significant number of under 30s yours for life. If the Dems stopped playing around with privatization and education debt as panacea for the working class they wouldn't be in this bind to begin with. Basically, less culture war platitude more real econ- though I don't think the party has much interest in this angle as it might cut off the donation gravy train.

Trabisnikof posted:

I completely agree with your premise, but I believe your strategy is the current strategy. The Democratic Party across the South is more conservative, anti-regulation, pro-liberty, whatever.

Pick a state that was once a Blue Democratic stronghold and is now a strong Republican state then look at the elections where that state's congressional delegation switched. Look up those elections and you will find that the vast majority don't involve gun rights as a campaign issue. Guns effect turnout, sure. Guns effect donations and lobbying.

But at the end of the day there are very few districts left where a true anti-regulation Democrat (see campaign ads shoot bills) can't win because of the national party's gun control policies.

I do really agree with the central tenant that it is incredibly hypocritical the way the left treats rural America. Guns included. I just don't think the guns part of it is the key to the house.

quote:

The theory behind helping people like Amparo—a working-class, lesbian Latina who never saw herself as a potential officeholder until the WFP came calling—is that when seats open up for state legislature or Congress, it’s these lesser officeholders that the Democratic Party will draw upon. (Many New York politicos say the WFP is more organized and effective than the state Democratic Party, and Democratic candidates routinely draw on WFP staff for their campaigns.) In the municipal elections across New York State in November, 71 of the WFP’s 111 downballot candidates won—including Amparo, who beat her Republican challenger by just 21 votes.

Hal_2005 posted:

They statistically can't. Democrats have passed through the 'generational window' which is a fancy way of saying millennial median age has passed from generationally a socialist leaning ideology, generated while in state education to a 'family' set of values upon entering the workforce.

Hal_2005 posted:

They statistically can't. Democrats have passed through the 'generational window' which is a fancy way of saying millennial median age has passed from generationally a socialist leaning ideology, generated while in state education to a 'family' set of values upon entering the workforce. We saw the same swing in the mid-70's onwards to the mid 90's where even core DNC policies became for all practical intentions RNC policies under Clinton (mid first term to back half second term).

Jazerus posted:

Does that mean there's a good excuse for continuing to pretend stupid legislation isn't stupid and that really, guys, we're actually trying to control guns here with these policies? Not really. Especially since the demographics in the Democratic party that care about gun control don't care about banning tactilol poo poo either and would like real gun control.

blowfish posted:

gobbagool posted:

Why do you consistently post in threads about American politics when your contribution is rarely more than smarmy condescension? Is your life that devoid of meaning?

gohmak posted:

Define "real gun control". There is no definition for "reasonable gun control" and Democrats aren't in good faith on this issue. But let's continue to put our heads in the sand that it is not a liability.

blowfish posted:

real gun control = gun control which targets things contributing to the largest proportion of gun violence, not getting worked up over tacticlol poo poo because black guns with holes and rails are scary.

you can still debate over how much is reasonable, but at least target something worthwhile so you're not blatantly being an uneducated moron who is easily distracted by... oooh shiny

Flowers For Algeria posted:

Democrats can win back the House by being left-wing. That's all.

gohmak posted:

banning handguns is a non starter.

Hal_2005 posted:

They statistically can't. Democrats have passed through the 'generational window' which is a fancy way of saying millennial median age has passed from generationally a socialist leaning ideology, generated while in state education to a 'family' set of values upon entering the workforce. We saw the same swing in the mid-70's onwards to the mid 90's where even core DNC policies became for all practical intentions RNC policies under Clinton (mid first term to back half second term).

At best the DNC can pivot towards "Bush lite", the Clinton strategy, or go for broke and go full retard on a Bernie-socialism angle which is polarizing and unelectable. At worst, DNC policies are least effective in deflation (depressions) and are probably going to be impossible to implement given monetary policy constraints. A fancy way of saying Bernie bucks is the most progressive and most fantastic thing which will never happen for the next 80 years. The Left will of course blame America for this and not their own Strategists.

gohmak posted:

banning handguns is a non starter.

DeusExMachinima posted:

Then allow me to suggest, at the risk of becoming too abstract here, that you spend your time on something you can accomplish but that has also quantifiable significant public safety results?