Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Don't Panic - Organize

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Serious Callers Only said:

 

Anyway, my bet is now civil war mid 2022 after the coup. Global warming and staggering incompetence and evil make it kind of sure, not to mention russia.

The idea that Americans would ever rouse for a civil war is farcical.

48 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

if we get a civil war does that mean we get to build pipelines from the midwest to california after the war so california can take their water?

Although, everyone loves a good farce so I'll indulge. It would make a certain amount of sense, for the survivability of the nation and indeed the species you understand, to reapportion unused irrigation equipment and resources from the subjugated extremist localities for use in the more... stable western regions of our new America.

Or if that doesn't work then I say simply woe to the vanquished.

27 minutes ago, aceluby said:

They have none, and it's ridiculously stupid to try and go after 'swing' voters.  Non-voters are the key for democrats, and Biden doesn't get any non-voter to go out and vote.  It's still too early to tell who will be able to do that, but Biden definitely won't

Silly, silly, gooses. Non-voters don't vote in primaries do they? Who votes in primaries gooses? Is it the people most likely to recognize and support Joe Biden like they did HRC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

The idea that Americans would ever rouse for a civil war is farcical.

Although, everyone loves a good farce so I'll indulge. It would make a certain amount of sense, for the survivability of the nation and indeed the species you understand, to reapportion unused irrigation equipment and resources from the subjugated extremist localities for use in the more... stable western regions of our new America.

Or if that doesn't work then I say simply woe to the vanquished.

Silly, silly, gooses. Non-voters don't vote in primaries do they? Who votes in primaries gooses? Is it the people most likely to recognize and support Joe Biden like they did HRC?

The Sierras provide a nice natural defense for California against massed ground assault from the christian taliban party. handful of east west motor routes to defend which utilize almost all the natural passageways, and then air raid protocols would be needed. Indicates the major battles would be on christian taliban territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Is it the people most likely to recognize and support Joe Biden like they did HRC?

Not really, actually.  Think about it.  The primary electorate is going to be inherently more politically active than the general electorate, on both sides.  More politically active individuals tend to be more partisan, not less.  Biden is trying to appeal to the precise opposite demographic - the "Average Joes," that demonstrably have less of a tendency to participate in primaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

The Sierras provide a nice natural defense for California against massed ground assault from the christian taliban party. handful of east west motor routes to defend which utilize almost all the natural passageways, and then air raid protocols would be needed. Indicates the major battles would be on christian taliban territory.

They are already in California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not really, actually.  Think about it.  The primary electorate is going to be inherently more politically active than the general electorate, on both sides.  More politically active individuals tend to be more partisan, not less.  Biden is trying to appeal to the precise opposite demographic - the "Average Joes," that demonstrably have less of a tendency to participate in primaries.

Do you remember that not all "politically active" persons are as informed as yourself and the majority of the individuals who participate here? There's a reason Joey B is polling a single Sanders stroke away from a majority. Compare really quickly the monthly pages views of any major politics publication to the viewership numbers of Fox, CNN, or MSNBC then spend five minutes pondering the difference in content quality.

It is a mistake to assume everyone thinks like you or the people you value.

14 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

They are already in California.

Not after I make the rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Do you remember that not all "politically active" persons are as informed as yourself and the majority of the individuals who participate here?

Yes.  That's my point.  Putting endogeneity aside, the less informed tend to be the less politically active tend to be the less partisan and, therefore, tend to be more "moderate" and less likely to vote in primaries.

24 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Compare really quickly the monthly pages views of any major politics publication to the viewership numbers of Fox, CNN, or MSNBC then spend five minutes pondering the difference in content quality.

I don't know why I'm supposed to care about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

PA went for Trump by, uh, 46000 votes total. Less than 1%.

And one vote out of 46000 is less than .01%. For this I'd be obliged to go for the old white dude? Come on.

Quote

The notion that your vote would be wasted in Pennsylvania is some of the most amazing pouting I've ever seen. 

It was wasted. Could've skipped voting. Could've voted third party. Could've voted Mickey Mouse. Same result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, AverageGuy said:

And one vote out of 46000 is less than .01%. For this I'd be obliged to go for the old white dude? Come on.

It was wasted. Could've skipped voting. Could've voted third party. Could've voted Mickey Mouse. Same result.

Um yeah? If you care to protect abortion rights, LGBTQ rights or the rights of non-whites. If the moment dissatisfaction of voting for a canidates you don't like should be a small price to pay if any of those things are truly important to you. If you don't really value those things enough to swallow your pride and vote, I hope you'd at least never complain about them being eroded since you basically did nothing to try to protect when you could've.  If the "progressive" voters who opted to vote third theighned to vote for Clinton she would have won and those things(I presume you care about), would have been much more secure. It's because of the sentiment you embraced that Trump was able to win. They're approach simply served to give themselves a sense of moral superiority. There was never a reasonable expectation that there vote could lead to Jill stein to be president. It was/would be for ego.

Seriously this is as ridiculous as a man complaining about having paid for homeowner insurance when the house he owned never had an issue.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DMC said:

I'm not, like, championing a Two Women One Ticket thing.  I agree that if a woman wins the nomination, she should pick a male (although at the same time, if a male wins the nomination, they should probably pick a female).  

I'm sceptical of the idea that basically any form of 'balance' to the ticket from a VP pick matters at all, tbqh. I think these days, VP picks are mostly about assuring the voters that if you fell down dead or whatever, you've had the good judgement to pick someone acceptable to your supporters as your substitute. A candidate your voters like well enough but who wasn't strong enough to get the nomination on their own, like Biden. Maybe some internal coalition-building plays into it too, as with Pence. But I don't think a voter who really wanted a female nominee is going to be persuaded by a female VP pick (though they may feel better about holding their nose and voting, I suppose), and I really don't think any voter who has a problem with a female nominee is going to be reassured by the presence of a male VP pick - or put off by a second woman. Similarly with race, geographical origins or even sexuality. Buttigieg or Harris would make history as a VP pick, but I don't think they'd move the needle. 

1 hour ago, AverageGuy said:

And one vote out of 46000 is less than .01%. For this I'd be obliged to go for the old white dude? Come on.

It was wasted. Could've skipped voting. Could've voted third party. Could've voted Mickey Mouse. Same result.

I mean, by this argument every vote was wasted. Voted for Jill Stein? Your vote was 0.00002% of her vote! Wasted! Voted for Clinton? Wasted! Every single vote is wasted on its own terms, because single votes don't usually decide elections. Although in our last election here, my guy won by two votes, which means me not only voting for him but persuading my son to do so did matter. That was a freak result, but thinking about it, it illustrates the paradox rather well: single votes don't matter, but every winning margin is made up of single votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DMC said:

Not really, actually.  Think about it.  The primary electorate is going to be inherently more politically active than the general electorate, on both sides.  More politically active individuals tend to be more partisan, not less.  Biden is trying to appeal to the precise opposite demographic - the "Average Joes," that demonstrably have less of a tendency to participate in primaries.

Most of what I recall seeing about Democratic primary voters, especially in early states, is that they're older, whiter, and more centrist than the party as a whole. (Couldn't find a good source in the limited time I have before going to work though.)

On top of that, how  many more leftist candidates will make it to next February, then get through the early hurdle of more conservative states before Super Tuesday, especially if the media are going all in on "a moderate who can win back Trump voters" plus "but what about electability in the general election?" and refuse to give airtime to candidates the same way they refused to cover Clinton's ideas last time so they could show empty podiums of where Trump was supposed to speak?

I do not put it beyond mainstream media conglomerates to put their thumbs on the scale either. Not the reporters themselves, (although unconsciously they may transfer their own biases or be caught up in the infamous Beltway Bubble) but I doubt that, say, the Viacoms of the world have much enthusiasm for Democratic contenders who keep calling for breaking up monopolies and such. Don't forget the tendency to force "both sides!!!11!!!!1!" style centrism down everyone's throat.

My favorite candidate is Warren by a mile, but I'm pretty sure she's going to have do the equivalent of dismantling a brick wall with her bare hands to get the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll quote this later when I'm at a computer, but wanted to get @DMCand other eyes on it. It's a fascinating and alarming set of studies and analysis of partisan identity. In particular it's amazing- and probably accurate- in indicating that the more informed you are, the more likely it is that you can rationally change your reasoning to an entirely opposite viewpoint based on partisan alignment. Basically, the more aligned you are with the partisanship the more likely it is that policy doesnt matter. 

 

https://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/interviews/rhetoric-escalates-talking-lilliana-mason/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that Alabama just told Georgia to hold its beer.

Man do white women hate women…..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mormont said:

I'm sceptical of the idea that basically any form of 'balance' to the ticket from a VP pick matters at all, tbqh.

Oh sure, definitely agreed.  Seems to me the only substantive electoral impact a VP pick can have is if you make a really bad choice, like Palin or the Tom Eagleton debacle for McGovern (which is another shameful chapter in our history that is strongly connected to Watergate, for those who don't know).  Even then, Bush Sr. did fine after picking Dan Quayle in 88.  I do think it's possible, though, that there could be some significant backlash if a white male wins the nomination and then picks another white male.  And you wanna avoid that, it's an unforced error.  So in that way you could argue there is some benefit to ensuring "balance."

1 hour ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Most of what I recall seeing about Democratic primary voters, especially in early states, is that they're older, whiter, and more centrist than the party as a whole. (Couldn't find a good source in the limited time I have before going to work though.)

Not really.  I mean, in terms of focusing only on "early states," obviously the first two in Iowa and New Hampshire are going to be that way due to the makeup of those states - just as South Carolina is going to be more African American and Nevada is going to be more Latinx.  But all 4 propositions I made in that post are well-founded in the literature, I didn't just pull those out of my ass.  Further, if you just google "Democratic primary electorate," top-page results will tell you that the Dem primary electorate is particularly well-educated*, increasingly diverse, and decreasingly moderate.  As for age, yes, older voters (unsurprisingly) will turnout more compared to young voters.  However, from the first link:

Quote

In addition to being better educated and richer than their neighbors, primary voters in both parties tend to be older than their neighbors. However, important differences exist across the two parties. Figure 7 displays the age of party primary voters relative to the average age distribution in the general population of the districts sampled. While Democratic primary voters are somewhat evenly distributed across the three age cohorts, Republicans voters tend to be older than the general population.

*This first link is based on the 2018 midterm primary electorate, which is an important difference from the presidential cycle.  However, it's Brookings, which does thorough analysis, and it's recent, so combined I think those make up for that deficiency.

2 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

I do not put it beyond mainstream media conglomerates to put their thumbs on the scale either.

Sure, Biden could receive that benefit in terms of media execs' preference.  But he's also got a disadvantage there in that he's boring, and known.  The media's gonna wanna play with shiny new things.  And they're also, of course, going to want to focus on - and gin up if necessary - a horserace.  Those aspects are disadvantages for him.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I'll quote this later when I'm at a computer, but wanted to get @DMCand other eyes on it. It's a fascinating and alarming set of studies and analysis of partisan identity. In particular it's amazing- and probably accurate- in indicating that the more informed you are, the more likely it is that you can rationally change your reasoning to an entirely opposite viewpoint based on partisan alignment. Basically, the more aligned you are with the partisanship the more likely it is that policy doesnt matter. 

Yes, Uncivil Agreement is an outstanding work, highly recommended.  On of the top 5 Americanist books of the past decade.  The aspect you (and I assume she, I didn't read the interview cuz I gotta get going) are talking about there is derived from and helping to confirm a concept popularized by Zaller's RAS model - wherein the most politically aware individuals are able to rationale and reject dissonant information, and therefore tend to be more (and the most) partisan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Exxon mobil ad from the 1960's :cool4:

https://imgur.com/gallery/OMgYt

btw, before the ad was made, and since companies used to do this thing called 'sustainability studies', they already knew the risks even before the ad.

The company had been studying the carbon-dioxide problem for decades, since before it changed its name to Exxon. In 1957, scientists from Humble Oil published a study tracking “the enormous quantity of carbon dioxide” contributed to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution “from the combustion of fossil fuels.” Even then, the observation that burning fossil fuels had increased the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere was well understood and accepted by Humble’s scientists. What was new, in 1957, was the effort to quantify what percentage of emissions had been contributed by the oil-and-gas industry.

The American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s largest trade association, asked the same question in 1958 through its air-pollution study group and replicated the findings made by Humble Oil. So did another A.P.I. study conducted by the Stanford Research Institute a decade later, in 1968, which concluded that the burning of fossil fuels would bring “significant temperature changes” by the year 2000 and ultimately “serious worldwide environmental changes,” including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap and rising seas. It was “ironic,” the study’s authors noted, that politicians, regulators and environmentalists fixated on local incidents of air pollution that were immediately observable, while the climate crisis, whose damage would be of far greater severity and scale, went entirely unheeded.

And ofc:

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/brunt-ice-shelf-about-to-break-away-into-iceberg-3x-size-of-toronto-15x-size-metro-vancouver

Edited by Serious Callers Only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DMC said:

Yes, Uncivil Agreement is an outstanding work, highly recommended.  On of the top 5 Americanist books of the past decade.  The aspect you (and I assume she, I didn't read the interview cuz I gotta get going) are talking about there is derived from and helping to confirm a concept popularized by Zaller's RAS model - wherein the most politically aware individuals are able to rationale and reject dissonant information, and therefore tend to be more (and the most) partisan.

It's kind of like that, but it's a different reference - to Geoffrey Cohen. Here, I'll mention it in full:

Quote

In his paper “Party Over Policy,” Geoffrey Cohen describes manipulating which party supposedly advocates for either a stringent or a generous welfare policy. He describes how people who identify as partisans will switch their own policy preference in order to match their party’s. And then Cohen’s findings get a bit alarming when he asks these people whether party identification has influenced their policy position. People say no. They don’t believe party ties influenced their policy position, even though Cohen literally just manipulated his presentation so that this type of influence could happen. And then he actually asks them to write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. He emphasizes that their local representative reads these sometimes, so their letter might have an influence on changing the policy, so they should really think through why they hold this position and what good supporting arguments they can give. And people come up with reasons and write these very thoughtful letters on behalf of a policy that they just embraced on the spot.

It's not even rejecting dissonant information - it's outright rejecting the concept that they changed their mind due to partisanship. 

The whole thing is a great read - it's not a review so much as an interview with her, and she's fascinating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's kind of like that, but it's a different reference - to Geoffrey Cohen. Here, I'll mention it in full:

It's not even rejecting dissonant information - it's outright rejecting the concept that they changed their mind due to partisanship. 

The whole thing is a great read - it's not a review so much as an interview with her, and she's fascinating. 

So, in conclusion, a strong partisan such as Joe Biden has probably completely changed his mind on things like mass incarceration, and sexual harassment, and he outright rejects the concept he changed his mind due to his partisanship and can become a strong defender of these issues

Or, for example, a strong partisan like Barack Obama can completely change his mind on an issue like Gay Marriage, and outright reject the concept he changed his mind due to his partisanship and become almost instantly a strident, eloquent defender of his new position.

Or if strong partisan John Kerry was for it before he was against it, it doesn't matter? (unless the media is wildly unfair because his chosen rhetoric sounds so incredibly bad and manifestly hypocritical and untrustworthy)

In other words, we can probably trust either man to be a standard bearer on issues in which the party has changed position, because they have automatically always matched the party, even if have prior anti-positions on issue x. So this is why past positions don't matter very much, and people are willing to trust Obama or Biden on various issues where party stances have changed.

Apply to Trump and get a headache.

 

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lokisnow said:

In other words, we can probably trust either man to be a standard bearer on issues in which the party has changed position, because they have automatically always matched the party, even if have prior anti-positions on issue x. So this is why past positions don't matter very much, and people are willing to trust Obama or Biden on various issues where party stances have changed.

Apply to Trump and get a headache.

 

I wasn't talking about candidates at all. It'd be an interesting thing to look at to some degree, but a single person who is leading has a different dynamic than a crowd of tightly knit homogenous ingroup people. 

No, what it tells me is that Trumpism is likely going to be around for a while, and ideas that were horrible 5 years ago will be considered commonplace and obviously right for a bit. It tells me I need to start doing what Sarah Kenzidor said - start writing down my views and beliefs and the things around me, because my mind cannot be trusted to rationally evaluate and be consistent in those ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lokisnow said:

In other words, we can probably trust either man to be a standard bearer on issues in which the party has changed position, because they have automatically always matched the party, even if have prior anti-positions on issue x. So this is why past positions don't matter very much, and people are willing to trust Obama or Biden on various issues where party stances have changed.

You're just describing how politics works here in terms of Dems ensuring they maintain national electability.  I don't think there's any deserved ill-will to give to Obama because he waited until it was politically palatable to come out for SSM.  I wanted him to get elected, and any Dem candidate in 2008 had to equivocate on that.  This is similar to many of the policy complaints on Biden.  Context is important and I think the left is annoying by ignoring that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×