US-Politics The Resistible Rise of Donald J. Trump

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

And yet you still managed to miss the point. The original statement was that we did not pass the legislation for background checks. You responded to this by a note that the polling was wrong, which doesn't really have anything to do with anything when you're talking about congress. Keep doubling down though. It continues to be good theater while not actually saying anything of substance. 

For a brief moment, I forgot who I was arguing with. 

I never said that the polling was wrong. This is either a lie, or an unintentional misrepresentation. I'd appreciate it if you would correct it. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Here's the specific quote you were responding to, Nestor. You then conflate this with a failure of polling later on.Which again - not remotely the actual thing being discussed. I do expect you'll respond to this by telling us either how it wasn't clear what Tywin was talking about and you know better, or how you were correct but not talking about the point at hand.  

I didn't say what you quoted me as saying.

 

**Edited to add: Tywin said what you quoted me as saying. My response was:

 

"Such dramatics. It's not a failure of democracy because you can't get enough people top vote in line with your legislative preferences. That's a failure of advocacy - not democracy. " 

I didn't say anything about polling in my response. I started talking about polling as the conversation progressed to that subject.  

[Kalbear]

If voters want candidates who are stronger on gun control issues, they can elect them into office. I've seen probably millions of dollars worth of NRA-sponsored pro-gun advertisement, but I'm not pro gun, and I'm not voting for pro-gun candidates. 

This assumes a certain big thing that doesn't actually exist. Let's see if you can figure out what that assumption is. I'll put it in spoiler tags.

This assumes that a candidate stronger on gun control issues actually exists for voters to vote for. Most of the time they do not exist, as they don't get the funding that the candidates without strong statements on gun issues can. 

[Swordfish]

Yes.

It's easy to play the pseudo-intellectual* and say, "Oh, if you want your way, just get a majority on your side", but of course in our democracy the will of a dedicated and passionate minority often trumps the will of the majority.

*I'm not saying you are a pseudo-intellectual, Tywin.

Then that would be a failure on the part of the majority, not a failure of democracy.

i don't see how it's undemocratic to advocate for your position, even if you are in the minority.

[Kalbear]

For a brief moment, I forgot who I was arguing with. 

I never said that the polling was wrong. This is either a lie, or an unintentional misrepresentation. I'd appreciate it if you would correct it. 

Nah. I'll just quote you and show you what you said. 

If a poll says one thing and the that poll doesn't translate into policy action consistent with that poll - that's not a failure of democracy. That just means that democracy isn't run by polling and that polling isn't necessarily that good at exposing the revealed preferences of voters. 

The bold part can be simplified as 'the polling was wrong'. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

This assumes a certain big thing that doesn't actually exist. Let's see if you can figure out what that assumption is. I'll put it in spoiler tags.

Hidden Content

This assumes that a candidate stronger on gun control issues actually exists for voters to vote for. Most of the time they do not exist, as they don't get the funding that the candidates without strong statements on gun issues can. 

This isn't an assumption at all. Where's the evidence that people vote for candidates based solely or primarily on the amount of funding they get? Did you vote for your Congressional representative based on how much funding they received? Are you voting for your preferred presidential candidate of choice based upon how much funding they received? 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

 

Nah. I'll just quote you and show you what you said. 

The bold part can be simplified as 'the polling was wrong'. 

If by "simplified" you mean "incorrectly restated" then you are correct. 

Unfortunately, it cannot be - so you are incorrect. 

It can both be the case that 90% of voters are in favor of thing X, but elect a candidate who is in favor of the opposite of thing X. This does not mean that 90% of voters are not actually in favor of thing X. It might mean that a majority of voters actually rank issues A, B and C more highly than thing X, so they are willing to vote for a candidate that is more strongly in favor of A, B and C while at the same time voting against X. Happens all the time, and I don't consider this any kind of "failure." 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

"Such dramatics. It's not a failure of democracy because you can't get enough people top vote in line with your legislative preferences. That's a failure of advocacy - not democracy. "

Far more people lobby, in other words advocate, for stronger gun laws than lobby to maintain the status quo or rescind existing laws.

[Kalbear]

This isn't an assumption at all. Where's the evidence that people vote for candidates based solely or primarily on the amount of funding they get? Did you vote for your Congressional representative based on how much funding they received? Are you voting for your preferred presidential candidate of choice based upon how much funding they received? 

Willful misinterpretation. I'm saying that the candidates don't exist. They aren't there to be voted for. And they don't exist because they don't tend to run without the funding, and that occurs because they don't get funding if they don't have certain positions. 

You're also equating presidential races with congressional ones, which again is a false equivalency. Voting habits for representatives have not a particularly strong correlation with voting habits for presidents. 

As to better funded == winners, let's see. 91% of the time the better funded candidate wins. 

[Swordfish]

Far more people lobby, in other words advocate, for stronger gun laws than lobby to maintain the status quo or rescind existing laws.

So then you would agree that there is probably something more going on here than simple lobbyists holding onto the throats of politicians and jedi mind tricking the unwashed masses, yes?

[JonSnow4President]

Willful misinterpretation. I'm saying that the candidates don't exist. They aren't there to be voted for. And they don't exist because they don't tend to run without the funding, and that occurs because they don't get funding if they don't have certain positions. 

You're also equating presidential races with congressional ones, which again is a false equivalency. Voting habits for representatives have not a particularly strong correlation with voting habits for presidents. 

As to better funded == winners, let's see. 91% of the time the better funded candidate wins. 

I don't remember her source, but I know my poli sci professor back in school lectured that research showed it was not that strong a casual relationship.  In other words, people gave money to the person they liked more (more likely to win the election if more people like them), or gave money to the person they already thought would win.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Willful misinterpretation. I'm saying that the candidates don't exist. They aren't there to be voted for. And they don't exist because they don't tend to run without the funding, and that occurs because they don't get funding if they don't have certain positions. 

You're also equating presidential races with congressional ones, which again is a false equivalency. Voting habits for representatives have not a particularly strong correlation with voting habits for presidents. 

As to better funded == winners, let's see. 91% of the time the better funded candidate wins. 

I can't be "equating presidential races with congressional ones" because I didn't "equate" anything at all. I asked YOU how you voted for your Congressional representative and I asked YOU how are you intend to vote for your Presidential candidate. I didn't "equate" these two things and I asked about them separately. I'm just curious whether you're voting for either because of how successful they were at fundraising. If I had to guess, the reason you're refusing to answer is because you are not - and you don't actually consider their fundraising at all in your decision as to whether to vote for them. 

That candidates who are better funded tend to win elections does not mean that money causes you to win. (Correlation is not causation - right?) Consider an alternative scenario - that those candidates who are more persuasive are better at both raising money and gathering votes. Or another alternative scenario - that those candidates who take on positions that are popular garner more financial support and more votes. In these cases, the money is coming to the candidate for the same reason that they're winning elections. Now, of course, this is just speculation. But it's certainly no MORE speculative than the idea that money is somehow "buying" these votes, and that people are persuaded by having gobs of cash thrown at them. 

 

[Kalbear]

If by "simplified" you mean "incorrectly restated" then you are correct. 

Unfortunately, it cannot be - so you are incorrect. 

It can both be the case that 90% of voters are in favor of thing X, but elect a candidate who is in favor of the opposite of thing X. This does not mean that 90% of voters are not actually in favor of thing X. It might mean that a majority of voters actually rank issues A, B and C more highly than thing X, so they are willing to vote for a candidate that is more strongly in favor of A, B and C while at the same time voting against X. Happens all the time, and I don't consider this any kind of "failure." 

If you say so. I would say that polling not representing the will of the populace is a pretty big way that polling is wrong. As I figured, you'd just make it clear that that wasn't what you really, really meant when you said what you did, and what you really meant wasn't that the polling wasn't representative of the wishes of its electorate but rather that it isn't a representation of what the electorate will actually tolerate - and they don't feel that strongly about gun control.

Which apparently they kind of do. Of the people surveyed 20% basically said they didn't care, 60% said it was one issue they cared about, and 20% said they cared the most about it. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

So then you would agree that there is probably something more going on here than simple lobbyists holding onto the throats of politicians and jedi mind tricking the unwashed masses, yes?

Fear. If 9 powerless people advocate for one thing and 1 powerful person advocates for the opposite, what happens?

[Kalbear]

I can't be "equating presidential races with congressional ones" because I didn't "equate" anything at all. I asked YOU how you voted for your Congressional representative and I asked YOU how are you intend to vote for your Presidential candidate. I didn't "equate" these two things and I asked about them separately. I'm just curious whether you're voting for either because of how successful they were at fundraising. If I had to guess, the reason you're refusing to answer is because you are not - and you don't actually consider their fundraising at all in your decision as to whether to vote for them. 

That candidates who are better funded tend to win elections does not mean that money causes you to win. (Correlation is not causation - right?) Consider an alternative scenario - that those candidates who are more persuasive are better at both raising money and gathering votes. Or another alternative scenario - that those candidates who take on positions that are popular garner more financial support and more votes. In these cases, the money is coming to the candidate for the same reason that they're winning elections. Now, of course, this is just speculation. But it's certainly no MORE speculative than the idea that money is somehow "buying" these votes, and that people are persuaded by having gobs of cash thrown at them. 

 

I tend to vote party these days, and I usually vote for the candidate I perceive to be strongest - which has a strong correlation with funding. How about you? 

And I agree - correlation doesn't imply causation. There are anecdotes of poorly funded candidates winning over richer ones. That's true. About 9% of the time. Do you have any evidence that funding does not increase chances of winning? Because otherwise my speculation is a lot more realistic than yours is. 

Oh hey, look - 2008 was also won by the person who raised the most money 93% of the time. An interesting observation from that was that in 1 in 4 races they ran unopposed because no opponent could raise close to the money the other guy had. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

If you say so. I would say that polling not representing the will of the populace is a pretty big way that polling is wrong. As I figured, you'd just make it clear that that wasn't what you really, really meant when you said what you did, and what you really meant wasn't that the polling wasn't representative of the wishes of its electorate but rather that it isn't a representation of what the electorate will actually tolerate - and they don't feel that strongly about gun control.

Which apparently they kind of do. Of the people surveyed 20% basically said they didn't care, 60% said it was one issue they cared about, and 20% said they cared the most about it. 

 

All this tells me is that you aren't that familiar with the idea of how "revealed preferences" has been ported over from economics to the political realm. Because the "long version" of what I explained to you is exactly what the shorter version said - which is that polling is not that great at exposing the revealed preferences of voters - ie: that just because someone favors a particular policy proposal in isolation, doesn't mean that they are necessarily going to prioritize that policy proposal when they are voting for a candidate who represents specific policies on dozens of issues. A weak preference for one policy may be overcome by strong preferences for other policies. 

I've now explained this twice. If you still think that what I said can be reduced to "polling is wrong" you're either not capable of understanding this or arguing in bad faith - or both.  

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Worth noting that the last attempt at gun control legislation stalled out in the Senate, where it was unable to win a supermajority of Senators required to overcome a filibuster.

This was doubly undemocratic, first due to the supermajority requirement, and second due to the Senate itself being an undemocratic abomination where states receive equal representation regardless of population. It happens to be the case that less populated, more rural states are also more pro-gun, making their over-representation in the Senate a particularly significant stumbling block on this issue. 

These are not the only flaws in our form of government that keep it from being fully democratic. First-past-the-post is awful and undemocratic, the Electoral College is awful and undemocratic, gerrymandering is awful and undemocratic, the two party system, a product of the aforementioned, is awful and undemocratic. There are many failures in our democracy at a structural level, and they translate into a system where voters have 2 realistic choices, vague notions of what they're voting for (very few issues are actually publicly contested before elections), and the very real chance that a minority will be able to flumox any attempts at change anyway. There is also the very real possibility (it has happened) that an electoral minority might translate to a governing majority because of FPTP or the EC.

[Swordfish]

Fear. If 9 powerless people advocate for one thing and 1 powerful person advocates for the opposite, what happens?

I have literally no idea what you mean by this. how are you defining 'power' here? 

[Kalbear]

I understand your point, Nestor. I think you didn't argue it well to start, backtracked on it, and then when given data stated that the data is incorrect without any actual evidence to the contrary. I've provided several points of data at this point; you, despite being the person who backs up their claims the 'most of anyone' has done nothing. You've speculated without anything backing up your claims. 

Another interesting factoid: the representatives who voted against gun regulations recently overwhelmingly had donations from the NRA. I suppose this is also just correlation that there exists nearly a 1 to 1 mapping between lobbying money and votes. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I tend to vote party these days, and I usually vote for the candidate I perceive to be strongest - which has a strong correlation with funding. How about you? 

And I agree - correlation doesn't imply causation. There are anecdotes of poorly funded candidates winning over richer ones. That's true. About 9% of the time. Do you have any evidence that funding does not increase chances of winning? Because otherwise my speculation is a lot more realistic than yours is. 

Oh hey, look - 2008 was also won by the person who raised the most money 93% of the time. An interesting observation from that was that in 1 in 4 races they ran unopposed because no opponent could raise close to the money the other guy had. 

In 2008, I voted for the Green Party. In 2012, I shamefully voted against my class interests in favor of Obama, but only because he raised more money that Romney.