|
Failed Imagineer posted:Exactly this. "Unskew the polls" is not just for partisan lunatics, it's actually standard policy for all these companies. Psephology as a whole is a complete sham Is it a sham or marketing? I imagine there's a vested interest in pushing a particular narrative to sell more views -- like, even without going too far into the weeds and suggesting establishment dems and republicans are favored by the established interests, aren't the pollsters incentivized to give the "closest race" numbers possible for as long as possible to make everyone reporting on it more money (and thus induce them to pay for more polling)? Doctor Jeep posted:This sounds like something a twitter parody of wokeness would think of. That's exactly what it is. It's tokenism to try to appeal to people that no effort has gone into understanding. The wonkiest solution to the perception that The Left needs to be propitiated.
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2020 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Is Iowa unusually old? These entrance polls look bad, too many old people. The olds are over-represented in every election because they vote way more regularly than young people. Caucuses are weird and long and stupid, so the olds might be over-represented in them even more. Iowa's demographics are whiter than the average state, but not significantly older.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
I don't really see the endgame here. It does seem incredibly suspicious, but Pete being the obvious target and having virtually nowhere to go but down makes this move seem incredibly short-sighted. Everyone knows he went all-in on Iowa and has very little elsewhere, and his polling among non-Whitey McCrackerhams is in the sub-basement of poo poo Inc. Surely the establishment knows that. So why ratfuck in his favor just here? It isn't going to slow Bernie down all that much unless they keep doing it, and their next great hope is Bloomberg since Biden flamed out. Are they actually going to try for a brokered convention? That's the most suicidally stupid thing I can imagine, but ... what else are they aiming for? Or is Shadow Inc. funded by the republicans to make the D's look incompetent to lower turn out, and Petey boy just jumped on it because he's a hubristic little fuckstain? ... that's probably crazy. It sounds crazy. "Dems bad" is just such an unsatisfying line. I don't know why we made it the chorus to this song that never ends.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 10:35
|
|
|
CubanMissile posted:White people. Incidentally the reason that Iowa and New Hampshire are allowed to always go first, no doubt.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 10:40
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:a good point reignonyourparade posted:another good point I see where you're coming from, and I can believe that things are working out the way that they are because people are independently preying off the weakness of the DNC rather than it being a large scale plan, but I guess the part that's not sitting right with me is -- why has nobody from the establishment said anything about it? Or even begun to give out a rolling progress report of what they're doing, or what even went wrong? I don't see where there's a gain to anyone other than the trump camp for how badly it's being handled. You also both seem to agree that Pete's (if it is his) fuckery isn't going to be a big deal. It seems like it definitely should be, if only to not weaken the already shaky faith the Dems have in their own party. That's the thing that makes me think the play is wider than just this. They're not doing any damage control at all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 10:56
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:"Dems in disarray! What A Bunch Of Clowns!" is a better media narrative for their future invitations to Billionaire Island than "things are rigged" when there's a "let's gently caress the riggers' poo poo up" candidate in the race. This makes sense. I can see the DNC sacrificing longevity of the party to maintain success for the current elite no problem. It's the same concept that leads me to think they might actually try for a brokered convention if it looks like Bernie will take it. exquisite tea posted:If the Iowa results are invalidated in any way it won't only be Bernie's campaign that's livid. Half a dozen other candidates have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in this bumfuck state and there will be lawsuits everywhere. If ever we get someone who isn't a corrupt oligarch in power, campaign election reform needs to be way up there in terms of things we need to fix domestically. It's nonsense that the media makes billions off of making this poo poo a gameshow, and it immediately prices out a lot of people who would probably be incredible public servants. e: vvvvvvv Harsh, but probably fair. Not the DNC itself, but I would believe that the established money would do everything it could to keep a socialist from any real power, so it doesn't seem totally out there that the megarich would rather see the democratic party utterly destroyed and the GOP permanently ascendant than give up any of their inherited wealth. Ershalim fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Feb 4, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 11:06
|
|
|
hahah, oh my god. Can we just cancel 2020? It's already dumber than 2019. I'm done. Good night, thread.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 11:25
|
|
|
I think Pete rightly believes he can win the primary. Biden flamed out, and Bernie is too radical for the party to allow. Warren is also too radical, but since she flamed out earlier (and has yet to make a resurgence) she's not really seen as enough of a threat for the DNC to ratfuck. He went all in on Iowa specifically because winning Iowa would give him access to the anointed DNC position that Obama/Clinton/Biden used. We've established that they just all pass around jobs to their friends at this point, so he probably gambled on taking Biden's spot as "the chosen one" for the party to throw all its weight behind. Pete not having minority support doesn't really matter because the delegate system can be hosed with to massage things out into his favor anyway. Of course, if the party does do that, the democrats will lose the general. Bloomberg and Pete both suffer from the same problem -- they don't offer anything that the people want; they only represent the wealthy vested interests of the party itself. But that might be the point. The establishment only loses if Bernie wins. A trump win doesn't really hurt them like it does the rest of us.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2020 12:01
|
|
|
RottenK posted:i suppose you could assume that if the youth of today keep their politics as they grow older then eventually there will be a point where progressives dominate the dem primaries. I think it's more likely that the disgust with the process itself will be the feeling carried forward among people who were present and aware of the ratfuckery. A lot of people don't vote because they don't think it matters or because they don't care, but there's a growing sentiment that the representative democracy that the US uses is just straight up bad and shouldn't exist. Part of why electoralism gets so toxic is because there's a fundamental disconnect between people who want the system to change, and people who want the system uprooted and burned to replace it with something else.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2020 02:46
|
|
|
Ringo Star Get posted:Every few years I just hope more and more old people die off so that they can stop voting in ways to hurt the younger generation. While at the same time getting into shouting matches with younger people not voting because “it’s not convenient”. This will never solve the problem. The young people who don't vote are different young people every time because the previous youths are now ... not-youths, and old establishment dies only to pass their inherited power structure to new establishment who will act the same way. What we have is systemic disenfranchisement and hereditary power structures that need to be broken. Until that happens, the story will repeat -- the old vote for money, and the young don't vote at all. Thinking of this in terms of personal responsibility (ie- that there are specific bad old people and specific lazy young people) misreads the issue and prevents the sweeping systemic changes that are necessary because there's hope that things will fix themselves -- but they can't. They need to be forced.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2020 03:30
|
|
|
I think the reason people find it difficult is because there are hostages. The DNC is pointing out that it is, correctly, less traumatic for the downtrodden than the GOP is. But they're not actually going to solve any of the systemic problems that crush people, they'll just making lilting gentle noises and maybe make things better for a person or two. The "moral" choice isn't simple when the options are "continue hurting people" and "continue hurting people." Ytlaya is also correct in that the media makes it sort of a nonchoice for most. There is a very high barrier of entry to being informed about our political system, and most people don't have the time, energy, or inclination to reach it -- so they simply treat it as a team sport. Faced with the fact that one person can't realistically overturn the "will" of everyone else, being despondent isn't weird. The power we do have is mostly local. Everyone should get out the vote whenever they can for as much as they can, not because it'll make a difference in the current fight, but because like Viriginia shows, over time the groundwork can be laid and a lot of good things can be accomplished locally. For a lot of people that doesn't feel like enough or fast enough, but it's what we've got barring some other form of collective action. (Like mass refusal to pay debts, or a general strike or what have you) -- but any of those face similar uphill battles against uninformed, captive audiences, and the entrenched powers that own the dissemination.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:I too believe that the left should lie about what they are capable of doing, a thing that literally never blows up in their face ever It's almost as if, because of manufactured consent and regulatory capture, there entirely different sets of rules for people with power and people without it.  The senate is barely functional at the best of times. I don't imagine we'll see anything other than an E.O. before May, if even after. We need to help each other as best we can, because the government sure isn't going to. It's good that Bernie has taken the avenue of "we've got more important poo poo to do now, thanks." Sucks that the primary is effectively over, though. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
To be fair, it is. This should have been a nationwide response immediately; it's not like the idea of "oh it's hard to vote in a quarantine" is novel or something. But this is america, half-measure last minute fecklessness in the face of avoidable problems is our culture. loving republicans trying to pretend this isn't tradition.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Rainbow Knight posted:I feel like some allowances should be made for people that always work. I do what I can talking to coworkers and customers if it ever comes up, but it's hard to labor all day and have to muster up energy for a lot of other stuff. Not to mention that our elected representatives can and will betray us if they have to. It's just demoralizing to think about, but maybe it's just me. idk I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, but you seem to be saying that you think most progressive activists don't work? Nobody said activism was easy; it's usually extremely hard, very taxing, and super aggravating because it feels like no matter how much you throw yourself into it, it's never enough. Like, it's totally fine if you don't feel you have enough energy to give anything more, but ... uh, try not to act like you think people who do are only able to because they're unemployed or something. e: vvv I'm not. I was just trying to correct something that looked like it'd be a morale killer. Ershalim fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Apr 4, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
That's fair, I probably read into it because I see that argument by chuds all the time whenever I'm out doing anything. "Don't you people have jobs?!" is a favorite of theirs. Sorry if I read it into your post when you didn't mean that, RK.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Joe Rogan's the nazi podcaster right He's previously been known as a person who platforms the alt-right constantly and nods thoughtfully along with basically everything they say. But he also does that with pretty much anyone he has on his show. This confirmation of him going Trump over Biden just makes it more obvious he's a gateway to chuddery. I don't think he's up to goosestepping just yet, but eh. Faint praise.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
Rainbow Knight posted:I guess that's what I'm getting at: that people try their best and the thing to do would be to have mercy on them for not always being able to participate I agree with that, yeah. Sorry for misinterpreting before. Rockit posted:I'm wincing in advance. poo poo's hosed. But if B-Sans does drop out, do you think the DNC will immediately float a replacement for Biden? There's no way they don't know how terrible he looks. Is Biden the fix, or is he just temporary? I'm not really sure it makes a difference if they replace him with a younger suit, since enthusiasm is already shot all to hell, but what are the lanyards saying?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2020 01:08
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:The guy who laughs it up at “dark enlightenment” dinners with Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Gavin McInnes is not a swing voter. How many times do people have to fall for this poo poo. Every time. We live in an era* where the only kind of identity that has any value is the most extreme version of that identity. Joe Rogan doesn't openly support lynching or drop slurs on the regular, and so as a polite person he must of course be a decent person. It's one of the reasons that the democrats have trouble appealing to the Big Tent as they used to. It's impossible to lean in any given direction without being denounced by someone on one side or the other. That's had a paralytic effect on the powers that be, so they opt to be centrism elementals and only make moves towards money. *this may just be human nature, but I'unno. e: it's not really related to him being a swing voter or not. But most of people's voting preference in media is an affectation, so I assume he doesn't actually vote the way he speaks. He's probably hardline R via libertarian ideology.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2020 03:25
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Unless you are assuming that Rogan was lying for some reason? Like, why would he lie? Being "independent" has tremendous cred for a certain crowd who want to see themselves as being above the petty team sport mentality. Lying for money and clout is a very common thing to do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2020 03:30
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Do you have any proof that he would not have voted for Bernie Sanders? Or is that a complete fabrication? Short of his entire history and viewpoints on most progressive issues as being superfluous, overblown, and needlessly antagonistic, no, not really. I don't really care about how he votes, personally. I was just pointing out that there's a financial incentive to lie about that sort of thing since you asked why he would bother to lie.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2020 03:38
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:No one owes the Democratic party anything. It's mindbogglingly arrogant that Democrats don't seem to understand that. Democrats get angrier at Green Party voters than they do at Republican voters because Democrats feel like they are owed those votes. It's insane. The psychology here is probably something akin to how people process abuse -- democratic voters are held hostage by republicans having structural advantages, and are 100% used to their main protector (the Dems, in this case) fail to protect them. Because that's baked in, and the republican establishment is the abuser, the anger tends to lash out at other people who are being abused. It's kind of a side effect of learned helplessness. "I can't change my situation, and I need you to change my situation, but you are't helping why aren't you helping gently caress you!" Cpt_Obvious posted:The entire concept of being "betrayed" by a swing voter is ridiculous. They aren't loyal in the first place. poo poo, the idea of being betrayed by voters is ridiculous. It is a candidate's job to convince people to join him. Nobody owes your candidate a vote. I don't think most people are informed enough to see the process this rationally. People get hurt and die when their side loses, so there's a drive to find meaning in what is essentially an irrational arbitrary situation they had no real power in. Blaming someone feels better, so calling it a betrayal is a natural response, I think. It would be nice if the dems felt they had to earn their constituent votes, though, instead of paychecks. That'd be a nice change.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:There are people who vote opposite whoever controls Congress or the White House to keep things “fair” lmao "we should give the other side a chance  !" ... loving hate those people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2020 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:It shows people don't do enough political organizing or volunteering. If you go out canvassing once, you'll meet people with equally inconsistent political stances. I think this might under-evaluate just how much sway the media coverage of Bernie and Biden's supposed inevitability had. I think a lot of people have a pretty basic core of what they think is acceptable (and it's pretty wide), but for the majority of them the only message that's come through for the past 4 years is "Trump has to go" and more recently, "Biden is the best way to get him gone." It's true that people don't vote on policy, for the most part, but it seems pretty likely that they don't actually vote on anything tangible at all. A repeated message is enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2020 04:54
|
|