US politics: 2 weeks notice

[Zorral]

26 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

tell me true - if a Republican campaigned on the above, would YOU vote for them?

Missing the point -- Their Sort don't and never have campaigned on anything even remotely resembling your examples.

Even when they try, it's clear this progressivism is only for WHITE MEN.

The closest possibly were some of the progressive issues of the time that Democrat of the time Wilson ran on that successfully beat out  Taft, who was all for the corporate monopolies -- and T Roosevelt refused a place in the NY primaries to take out Taft by the Republicans of the time.  It was also made vibrantly clear that none of the progressive programs Wilson planned included African Americans -- and he began federal government apartheid immediately, betraying their vote. The New Freedom, I think they called it. Next election ran on staying out of war in Europe, which just couldn't work out as Germany kept killing US citizens no matter how much appeasement he provided.  But then, his non-official Sec of State, just like his official one, Bryant, were utter unsophisticated idiots at diplomacy and understanding foreign powers, just like Wilson was.

 

[Kalbear]

35 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Missing the point -- Their Sort don't and never have campaigned on anything even remotely resembling your examples.

Yep, there'd be that 'the other side is evil' bit, right on time. Thanks!

[Maithanet]

Surprising no one, it was actually right wing thugs responsible for looting a police precinct. 

 

[DMC]

29 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

How is the north Carolina race not being considered a toss up?

@DMC

Well, first of all, it is literally called a toss up by Cook and Sabato, as well as Politico and Daily Kos.  Inside Elections has it as 'Tilt D,' a rating most other prognosticators don't even use.  And while 538 gives Cunningham a 64% chance of winning, they rate it the third closest Senate race by margin and fourth closest by chances of winning.

Second of all, I'd steer clear of RCP's "averages" when possible due to the obvious fact they cherrypick which polls to use with a clear GOP bias.  In this case their average is based on 6 polls since October 12.  Polls they've omitted since that time are:

• Meredith College - Cunningham +5
• Data for Progress - Cunningham +4
• Morning Consult - Cunningham +6
• Civiqs - Cunningham +6

When taking those into account, I'd tend to agree with 538 that Cunningham has about a 60-66% chance of winning.

1 hour ago, Killjoybear said:

This isn't anything specific to conservatives; this is specific to humans. And no, it's not about the 'religious mindset' - it's about human beings not being computers and not making choices on rational thought most of the time. 

This is generally entirely accurate and an important point.  However, in terms of human decision-making overall I'd say humans have a tendency to make emotional rather than rational decisions.  It's still a tug of war between the two and we are certainly capable of making rational choices - because we often do (plus I'd argue most decisions are a combination of rational and emotional anyway, but that's going down a rabbit hole). 

More to the point, this does not account for the fact affective polarization has consistently increased over the past 40 years.  Not to mention the rather obvious and inarguable shift in tone of political discourse since at least Gingrich and the 94 takeover.  Now, could this all be explained away by the ideological homogenization of each party and geographical sorting?  I guess, but that's a pretty lazy explanation.  Hell, even if you factor in Prior's (2007) argument that polarization reflects a shift in the composition of the electorate with less interested and more moderate citizens "opting out" with the advent of cable and the internet, that still leaves much to be explained.  While affective polarization has intensified over the past twenty years, it's not as if more of such people are "opting out," and in fact while it's uneven, turnout has generally increased since 2000 - so it would seem more people are actually opting back in.

Just saying, I don't think it's accurate and certainly not productive to simply chalk it all up to "humans make emotional decisions" and hand-wave it all away as hopeless.  There have been plenty of periods in American history without these levels of invective and hatred between the two major parties, it's definitely possible to return to such a state - albeit no I'm hardly optimistic of it happening anytime soon.  Moreover, it's not unfair or ignoring the left's own responsibility to emphasize the radicalization of the GOP is especially and disproportionately responsible for the fear and loathing of contemporary American politics.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Just saying, I don't think it's accurate and certainly not productive to simply chalk it all up to "humans make emotional decisions" and hand-wave it all away as hopeless.  There have been plenty of periods in American history without these levels of invective and hatred between the two major parties, it's definitely possible to return to such a state - albeit no I'm hardly optimistic of it happening anytime soon.  Moreover, it's not unfair or ignoring the left's own responsibility to emphasize the radicalization of the GOP is especially and disproportionately responsible for the fear and loathing of contemporary American politics.

When we've not had major division between the parties has been when the US has had a major external threat. The least polarized time was between the great depression and the end of the cold war, at least as far as identifying with a party and agreeing on common truths and values. I'm pretty skeptical of us getting to that again without that external threat. Maybe in 20-30 years when we are fighting for scraps of the world's resources we'll align - though it probably won't be a liberal alignment. 

It's reasonable to say that the GOP is more involved in stoking this for a variety of reasons - conservatives tend to favor authoritarianism, tend to favor tribal identity and ingroup values, the GOP is more in line with one specific ethnic and religious group compared to the Democratic party which tends to be needing a number of groups to align to common causes. But the notion that this is something specific to conservatives only? Please. 

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

When we've not had major division between the parties has been when the US has had a major external threat. The least polarized time was between the great depression and the end of the cold war, at least as far as identifying with a party and agreeing on common truths and values.

Observing rates of polarization throughout American history, it's quite dubious to identify major external threats as a causal factor.  First, last time we were this polarized was the post-Civil War era.  That wasn't due to an external threat or lack thereof, it was due to, ya know, the Civil War.  Second, at least looking at elite/congressional polarization, it started going down around 1900 and didn't start the current upwards trend until 1980.  That's eighty years of quelled polarization, very difficult to solely blame our shared blaming of the pinkos for that.

24 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

But the notion that this is something specific to conservatives only? Please. 

No argument here on that.

[argonak]

24 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

When we've not had major division between the parties has been when the US has had a major external threat. The least polarized time was between the great depression and the end of the cold war, at least as far as identifying with a party and agreeing on common truths and values. I'm pretty skeptical of us getting to that again without that external threat. Maybe in 20-30 years when we are fighting for scraps of the world's resources we'll align - though it probably won't be a liberal alignment. 

It's reasonable to say that the GOP is more involved in stoking this for a variety of reasons - conservatives tend to favor authoritarianism, tend to favor tribal identity and ingroup values, the GOP is more in line with one specific ethnic and religious group compared to the Democratic party which tends to be needing a number of groups to align to common causes. But the notion that this is something specific to conservatives only? Please. 

The way I see it around me, the GOP has been a pretty big tent for most of the past few years.  The thing that unites the far right most is that they consume the same media sources and talk to each other in their own unique lingos (see Trump confusing people with some of his weird fox news call outs during the debate).  I've seen this with coworkers who go down the rabbit hole.  They'll sometimes use some of this strange code or lingo in a meeting, which generally leads to awkwardness when no one else has a clue (or is too embarrassed to admit knowing about it) what they're saying.

No one is saying that this is specific to conservatives, my thought is just that the its more excessive and obvious among extreme conservatives right now, and that the conservative leadership weaponized it intentionally with their propaganda machine.  Unfortunately I think it has to a degree backfired on them.  I don't agree withe Joe Biden that Trump is blowing Dog Whistles, I believe he's barking to other dogs (to extend the metaphor).  The GOP leadership is riding a tiger to get their tax cuts and government subsidies, but that Tiger is more in charge than they are.

[Zorral]

21 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

The least polarized time was between the great depression and the end of the cold war, at least as far as identifying with a party and agreeing on common truths and values.

Without even trying to look for them I think you'd find a huge number of African Americans and Asians who would disagree with that.  And women too.

I cannot find a single era in this country in which it was not fighting with party division and that was most certainly true in FDR's time which covered both the Great Depression and WWII -- and Jim Crow was still deeply in affect in the Cold War era.  Not to mention women were forbidden to take out bank loans and own their own businesses and a whole lotta other things until just about 30 years ago.

You are looking only through the lens of a privileged white male.  Again.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, argonak said:

McCarthy?  Civil Rights era protests?  That was less polarized? 

From a partisan perspective? Yes. Democrats were running the biggest charge against desegregation then! The country had a lot of division, but the important thing was that it wasn't exclusively along party lines like it is now. Party identity wasn't nearly as big a deal as it is now as far as actual identity. 

1 minute ago, argonak said:

GOP is actually a pretty big tent.  The thing that unites the far right most is that they consume the same media sources and talk to each other in their own unique lingos (see Trump confusing people with some of his weird fox news call outs during the debate).  I've seen this with coworkers who go down the rabbit hole.  They'll sometimes use some of this strange code or lingo in a meeting, which generally leads to awkwardness when no one else has a clue (or is too embarrassed to admit knowing about it) what they're saying. 

The GOP is overwhelmingly white, rural, and protestant. Absurdly so. 

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Observing rates of polarization throughout American history, it's quite dubious to identify major external threats as a causal factor.  First, last time we were this polarized was the post-Civil War era.  That wasn't due to an external threat, it was due to, ya know, the Civil War.  Second, at least looking at elite/congressional polarization, it started going down around 1900 and didn't start the current upwards trend until 1980.  That's eighty years of quelled polarization, very difficult to solely blame our shared blaming of the pinkos for that.

It wasn't just pinkos, but yeah, the graph above pretty much tells the same thing I said -  we were super polarized through about 1929, then we hit less, and then it went up around 1990. 

 

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Without even trying to look for them I think you'd find a huge number of African Americans and Asians who would disagree with that.  And women too.

And those were among both parties which is the point. Polarization refers to how the two parties are separated against each other and how much of a person's identity is wrapped up in their political party. 

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I cannot find a single era in this country in which it was not fighting with party division

Then you're not understanding the point being made.

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

and that was most certainly true in FDR's time which covered both the Great Depression and WWII -- and Jim Crow was still deeply in affect in the Cold War era.  Not to mention women were forbidden to take out bank loans and own their own businesses and a whole lotta other things until just about 30 years ago. 

FDR is a great example of no polarization - people of both parties were happy to vote for him, overwhelmingly so. Jim Crow and women's rights were strongly favored by BOTH parties. Again, keep up!

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You are looking only through the lens of a privileged white male.  Again.

Oh fuck that noise. I'm not remotely saying that things were good or fair then - I'm saying that for a long time parties were largely not how people identified themselves as who they were. There were plenty of racist democrats, there were plenty of sexist democrats, Republicans were often some of the most progressive people on a wide swath of issues (including things like segregation and voting rights), etc. You couldn't easily say that Republicans were the party of racists. Everyone sucked. 

And honestly, that's another way that the US could go towards lack of polarization - if everyone goes back to hating minorities and women we'll see a lot less polarization. 

[Gaston de Foix]

So in the War for the Senate, the meme being pushed based on a spate of recent NYT polls is that the path for the Dems to get to 51 Senate seats and beyond is looking much more difficult this week.  

There's some truth to that although the polls in AZ, CO, ME remain solidly pro-Dem and Cunningham remains favored in NC.  IMO Greenfield also remains a slight favorite in IA.  So 50-51 seats seems pretty solid unless they both lose their races.   

I'm less troubled by GA polls one way or the other because it has seemed pretty clear to me that we will be heading to a run-off for both the races.  I've only seen one poll (today) showing Perdue with more than 50%.  And while I accept that a run-off may be less favorable for Dems I think it all depends on the outcome of the elections.  You may also have low Republican turnout after a Trump loss. 

MT, KS, SC and AK are looking more challenging although the important thing for me is the number of pick-up opportunities.  Even if each odd of victory is 20%, it's not crazy to think that we will have one unexpected favorable outcome. 

50-51 seats is the likely outcome.  52 is a good result.  53-54 if we get lucky.   

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

we were super polarized through about 1929, then we hit less, and then it went up around 1990. 

The difference between about 1900 and 1930 was polarization rates going from .7 to .6, and we were back up to .6 by 1980.  Plus the important thing is polarization was trending downwards starting around 1900.  Your interpretation of that graph is decidedly self-serving.  Further, 1930 to 1990 is still sixty years.  Acting like American politics achieved comity on a host of issues simply due to the rise of fascism, communism, WWII and the Cold War is bereft of context - namely FDR building a dominant coalition that situated conservative southerners with minorities and raging liberals within the same party.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Republicans won't change after just one election, no matter the margin. They can- probably correctly- assign their loss to Trump's unique blend of incompetence and boorishness, plus a global pandemic and economic recession. But this is a party that turned more extreme after its losses in the 2006, 2008, and 2012 elections, and voters have not punished them for it. They were largely rewarded up until 2018, which, again could just be unique to the Trump phenomenon. They won't change until they have to spend an extended period of time in the wilderness. 

Tipping the hat to comments in previous threads. It if Republicans don't, en masse, do the usual not conservative enough reaction to a Trump loss, then they will double down on the Trump worship and simply blame the China Plague^(TM), which of course is, overblown in its severity (Trump barely fell ill), Democrat states overreacted in controls (killing the economy), China deliberately spread it. So the forces of evil are to blame.

Of course a real hero always beats the forces of evil. Only losers don't beat evil. The movies prove true heroes always win.

[DMC]

23 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

So in the War for the Senate, the meme being pushed based on a spate of recent NYT polls is that the path for the Dems to get to 51 Senate seats and beyond is looking much more difficult this week. 

Far be it for me to argue with memes, or even be aware of which ones are being pushed, but that's not I've gleaned from the past week.  538's model has remained stable at giving Dems a 74-75% chance of retaking the Senate, the highest levels since they started the forecast.  Plus their average outcome has Dems winning 51.5 seats.  Charlie Cook just published an article speculating on the Dems' chances of winning 52-55 seats.  And of course, Sabato shifted Iowa from tossup to lean Dem a few days ago.  Things are still looking pretty good to me.

[Gaston de Foix]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

Far be it for me to argue with memes, or even be aware of which ones are being pushed, but that's not I've gleaned from the past week.  538's model has remained stable at giving Dems a 74-75% chance of retaking the Senate, the highest levels since they started the forecast.  Plus their average outcome has Dems winning 51.5 seats.  Charlie Cook just published an article speculating on the Dems' chances of winning 52-55 seats.  And of course, Sabato shifted Iowa from tossup to lean Dem a few days ago.  Things are still looking pretty good to me.

I agree with you, although there is a slight lag to the tipsters and ratings.  Anyway, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the high turnout will favor the Dem Senate races.  

Interestingly, Beto and Castro are going public with their dissatisfaction about the Biden campaign's failure to invest in TX: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2020/10/22/beto-orourke-and-julian-castro-fume-that-biden-has-neglected-texas-demand-crunch-time-investment/  

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Killjoybear said:

Oh fuck that noise. I'm not remotely saying that things were good or fair then - I'm saying that for a long time parties were largely not how people identified themselves as who they were. There were plenty of racist democrats, there were plenty of sexist democrats, Republicans were often some of the most progressive people on a wide swath of issues (including things like segregation and voting rights), etc. You couldn't easily say that Republicans were the party of racists. Everyone sucked. 

And honestly, that's another way that the US could go towards lack of polarization - if everyone goes back to hating minorities and women we'll see a lot less polarization. 

You are -- you are saying hating on women and minorities is good politically.  That as white male privilege as you can get.  And to say there was no polarization in 1929 or during FDR's era, is just historically nonsense.

This is exactly what rumptup says and does -- he has no luck running against a straight white male, so he foster virulent hatred against women of color, Hillary and the "AOC + 3"  That's all he can do, and you're endorsing that.

Whenever you drill down, the racism comes into it, whatever the issue is.  Study some history dude.  Good grief, Jefferson did it first!  Why do you think Washington bemoaned PARTIES? It was there from the beginning.  Look at the elections and the rallies and by Jackson's time, the elections. The newspapers, the campaign songs and jokes and smears, and out and out brawling in public places -- that was party identification and polarization.  And you know what?  Wealth -- i.e. inequality -- and using race / slavery to keep wealth and power, are always and always were, right at the bottom of it.

 

 

 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You are -- you are saying hating on women and minorities is good politically.  That as white male privilege as you can get.  And to say there was no polarization in 1929 or during FDR's era, is just historically nonsense.

He's really not.  Kal has already tried to explain this, but the topic of party polarization has nothing to do with the type of political conflict you are referring to - which no one is denying.  The discussion is specifically about the level of disagreement and antipathy between the two major parties over time.  Now I disagree with Kal's interpretation and reasoning for this phenomenon throughout our political history, but we are at least arguing the same thing while you plainly are not.  Whether you are doing so deliberately or unintentionally when Kal has tried to clarify this, you are inarguably misunderstanding Kal's point and the topic in general.

[DanteGabriel]

Jesus Christ @Zorral, Kal was just explaining what the previous equilibrium of American politics was based on, not endorsing it. Stop this stupid shit please.

[DMC]

Just saw this op-ed on the future of "Trumpism" and how it will manifest itself and continue if Trump loses, thought it was worth sharing based on the discussion we had here a bit ago (when was that a week ago?  Two?  Three?  This election gives me no handle on the passage of time).  Those mentioned as already positioning themselves to pick up the Trumpism mantle include Haley, Cotton, Pompeo, and Kristi Noem - who I think may well be the frontrunner.  Anyway, the following quotes strikingly echoed the arguments made in those discussions - especially the assumption that while Trump can importantly be the kingmaker, he's not going to be the once and future king:

Quote

“People are laying the groundwork to consolidate that Trump base,” said Amanda Carpenter, a Republican Trump critic and former advisor to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, another would-be successor. “Even with a big loss, he will still be the kingmaker of the Republican Party in many senses.” [...]

“There's money behind it now, and not only is there money, there is established media," said Lawrence Rosenthal, chair of the Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies and author of "Empire of Resentment: Populism’s Toxic Embrace of Nationalism."

"Something like Fox News can veer into the next pretty face," he added. "Breitbart is not going away.” [...]

“People tend not to want to associate with losers, as the president likes to tell us,” said Henry Olsen, author of “the Working Class Republican.”

“If he loses by a big margin, he’ll be a capital-L loser.”

 

[JGP]

 

Welp