US Politics - The Conceit of Not Conceding

[mormont]

29 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You expect the people who don't want the country to come together to act first?

Put it another way: do you expect the people who don't want the country to come together, to change their minds?

It is incumbent on you, surely, to explain how this works. What action does one take, first or otherwise? How does this work? Bromides and platitudes are all very well, but what specifically do you think is the way the Democrats can do differently this time than all the other times they've tried and failed to get the Republicans to give a shit about unity?

Obama relates in his memoir talking to McConnell about the benefits of a particular policy and McConnell responding that he just didn't care. You appear to be admonishing anyone opposed to Trump for not having that same conversation, over and over. Maybe the problem is the guy who just doesn't care. Maybe the moral responsibility is his.

You can't unify with someone who isn't interested. You can't win an argument with someone who doesn't care. Continuing to try is not actually adult behaviour. Adult behaviour is being able to recognise when it's time to move on.

[Lollygag]

1 hour ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

I’m sorry...the Blood of Liberty!!!?????

 

hahahahahaha

What a moronic name. 

But it's Sang de Liberte Foundation for the mainstreamers. Blood of Liberty is only for the white supremacists and Boogaloos - ssssshhhhhhh!

[Lollygag]

The closed primary systems are a downward spiral for extremism to take root. Left needs to be aware of this.

Party moves to an extreme and it alienates some in the middle > some in the middle leave the party > party becomes more extreme > alienates people in the middle who leave the party > party becomes more extreme .....

The Republicans won't budge on anything until they can win their primaries with it so you split their base changing the calculation of how Republicans win their primaries.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

The closed primary systems are a downward spiral for extremism to take root. Left needs to be aware of this.

No, empirically there is no significant correlation between a state's primary system and its relative extremism.  The closed primary system is not responsible for the Hastert rule and it's certainly not responsible for the increasingly bigoted, jingoistic and recalcitrant bent of the Republican party over the past forty years.

Here are the states with closed primary systems:  Delaware, Maryland, New York, Florida, Nevada, Oregon, Kentucky, New Mexico, Pennsylvania.

And here are the states with open primary systems for both presidential and state primaries:  Alabama, Montana, Vermont, Arkansas, Minnesota, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Missouri, Texas.

Please explain how the first group of states leads to more extremism taking root than the second group of states.

[Lollygag]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, empirically there is no significant correlation between a state's primary system and its relative extremism.  The closed primary system is not responsible for the Hastert rule and it's certainly not responsible for the increasingly bigoted, jingoistic and recalcitrant bent of the Republican party over the past forty years.

Here are the states with closed primary systems:  Delaware, Maryland, New York, Florida, Nevada, Oregon, Kentucky, New Mexico, Pennsylvania.

And here are the states with open primary systems for both presidential and state primaries:  Alabama, Montana, Vermont, Arkansas, Minnesota, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Missouri, Texas.

Please explain how the first group of states leads to more extremism taking root than the second group of states.

I'm not attributing it to this and it's not an inevitable result but a cycle that can be triggered. This is exactly the path Trumpism used to take over and what is keeping the Republicans stuck. The party is shrinking and the moderates are now floating or voting Dem specifically because of Trump, i.e., not moving the primaries toward the middle. Some on the left are openly trying to use the same playbook. Parties prefer some sort of closed primary to keep others from diluting the brand. Internal politics and whether they're swing states plays into that outcome, so that needs to be considered. Does an open primary matter as much in a state that red or that blue?

When it comes to open primaries, a distinction has to be made between truly open primaries and primaries like in my state where independents and swing voters (who generally value their independent status) are punished with party affiliations if they vote in a primary thus, in effect, creating a sort of closed primary.

 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You expect the people who don't want the country to come together to act first? If you want something to happen then it is incumbent upon you to to try to make it happen. There is no point in saying you want the nation to come together and then saying "you do it." I would think people know how the world works.

The adults in the room making the first move. What it looks like...I don't think you can handle what I think it should look like, because what it looks like to me is something that can't be done simply within nations singly.

It can't be because -- well, here ya go:

Quote

....Obama recounts the difficulty of dealing with Mitch McConnell (Ky.), the top Senate Republican then and now. Obama writes that Biden told him of how McConnell had blocked one of his bills. When Biden tried to explain the bill’s merits, McConnell responded, “You must be under the mistaken impression that I care,” Obama writes, recounting McConnell’s “shamelessness” and “dispassionate pursuit of power.”....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-book-biden-trump-palin/2020/11/13/36c4828a-25b8-11eb-8599-406466ad1b8e_story.html

(So Melania plagiarized yet again!)

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

When it comes to open primaries, a distinction has to be made between truly open primaries and primaries like in my state where independents and swing voters (who generally value their independent status) are punished with party affiliations if they vote in a primary thus, in effect, creating a sort of closed primary.

The list I gave were "truly" open primaries.  What you're referring to are "partially open" primaries, of which there are only six.  Anyway, my point is the rise in polarization/extremism within this country cannot be attributed to differences of primary systems in any measurable way.  This has been explored and revisited by a litany of researchers (including myself), and the results consistently come up null.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

The closed primary systems are a downward spiral for extremism to take root. Left needs to be aware of this.

Party moves to an extreme and it alienates some in the middle > some in the middle leave the party > party becomes more extreme > alienates people in the middle who leave the party > party becomes more extreme .....

The Republicans won't budge on anything until they can win their primaries with it so you split their base changing the calculation of how Republicans win their primaries.

Weren't you recently complaining that it's not fair that Sanders got to run as a Democrat?

[Lollygag]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

The list I gave were "truly" open primaries.  What you're referring to are "partially open" primaries, of which there are only six.  Anyway, my point is the rise in polarization/extremism within this country cannot be attributed to differences of primary systems in any measurable way.  This has been explored and revisited by a litany of researchers (including myself), and the results consistently come up null.

The bold looks true, but that's not what I was saying. I clearly said it's an accidental or intentional trigger (specifically a downward spiral) that was used, not an inevitability nor was I discussing decades, just Trumpism and our current situation.

The data presented seems to be denying what we all see and talk about all the time: the party is shrinking by alienating so many resulting in the middle leaving and Rs can't win primaries by governing in the middle any more - because not enough are left. (I'd argue gerrymandering plays in here quite a bit, but that's another reason why oversimplified data is a problem.)

Look at the behavior of the party and you'll see a direct line to whether they can win their primary with it or not.

[Lollygag]

9 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Weren't you recently complaining that it's not fair that Sanders got to run as a Democrat?

I didn't say fair or not. He self-identifies as not a Democrat but is running as a Democrat. I'll call that out every time but I don't blame him for jumping on the opportunity to do what Trump did because it's there. My problem is folks not seeing it for what it is and not seeing past the noses on their faces. Bernie'd be an idiot to not try it.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I clearly said it's an accidental or intentional trigger (specifically a downward spiral) that was used, not an inevitability nor was I discussing decades, just Trumpism and our current situation.

First I'd say that Trumpism and our current situation didn't just arise out of nowhere.  The 2010 cycle in particular saw a number of GOP incumbents getting primaried by Tea Party upstarts - and many of the latter were rather shockingly successful.  Their chance of success plainly was not due to the primary system(s) of any particular state(s).  Second, Trump's own success in the 2016 primaries clearly cannot be attributed to differences in the type of primary system - he was successful in all types of primary systems.  Third, the chances of incumbents getting primaried since Trump was elected is quite obviously based on their perceived obedience and deference to Trump himself.  The primary system of the incumbent's state is decidedly orthoganal.

12 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

The data presented seems to be denying what we all see and talk about all the time: the party is shrinking by alienating so many resulting in the middle leaving and Rs can't win primaries by governing in the middle any more - because not enough are left. (I'd argue gerrymandering plays in here quite a bit, but that's another reason why oversimplified data is a problem.)

Look at the behavior of the party and you'll see a direct line to whether they can win their primary with it or not.

This is all true, but it has nothing to do with the type of primary system.  The vanishing moderates is a broad trend of polarization dating back decades.  Identifying closed primary systems as a causal factor of this phenomenon is fundamentally absurd simply due to the fact the differences in the ideological makeup of the electorate within open versus closed primary systems is negligible.  You could crudely say that polarization's rise began shortly after the nationalization of primaries in general, but I don't think reverting back to party elites choosing nominees in smoke-filled backrooms is the solution.  I'd also thank you to not describe my or any other's dataset as "oversimplified."

[Lollygag]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

First I'd say that Trumpism and our current situation didn't just arise out of nowhere.  The 2010 cycle in particular saw a number of GOP incumbents getting primaried by Tea Party upstarts - and many of the latter were rather shockingly successful.  Their chance of success plainly was not due to the primary system(s) of any particular state(s).  Second, Trump's own success in the 2016 primaries clearly cannot be attributed to differences in the type of primary system - he was successful in all types of primary systems.  Third, the chances of incumbents getting primaried since Trump was elected is quite obviously based on their perceived obedience and deference to Trump himself.  The primary system of the incumbent's state is decidedly orthoganal.

I think you have some sort of nose suck going on.

I know Trumpism didn't rise over night. It's an extension of Buchanan's nationalist/racist crap and from there, it can be argued to have roots in Republicans deciding to go for ticked off Southerners and Northern sympathizers. But the actual complete monopoly of the party is new with Trump and Republicans can no longer win primaries from the middle because too many of them have been run off or are excluded from being a factor. And Dems make headway not by appealing to pols based on unity or whatever which we know doesn't work, but by splitting the base and changing that primary win calculation. Which the primary system exacerbates.

 

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is all true, but it has nothing to do with the type of primary system.  The vanishing moderates is a broad trend of polarization dating back decades.  Identifying closed primary systems as a causal factor of this phenomenon is fundamentally absurd simply due to the fact the differences in the ideological makeup of the electorate within open versus closed primary systems is negligible.  You could crudely say that polarization's rise began shortly after the nationalization of primaries in general, but I don't think reverting back to party elites choosing nominees in smoke-filled backrooms is the solution.  I'd also thank you to not describe my or any other's dataset as "oversimplified."

I'm well aware. And slow trends have tipping points which can trigger downward spirals. I didn't say it was a causal factor. But it is a huge problem at this point as it's the big hinge on Rs not being tied to Trump.

Bold 2: Pointing out a problem is not equivalent to advocating some weird, backward alternative because of some false binary mentality. As for oversimplified - something ain't right if it doesn't match what we all know: Republicans can't vote the middle and win their primaries anymore and this along with moderates fleeing/party shrinking, a rise in independents/non-affiliated and 60+ % of folks wanting a third party.

 

 

[GrimTuesday]

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Party moves to an extreme and it alienates some in the middle > some in the middle leave the party > party becomes more extreme > alienates people in the middle who leave the party > party becomes more extreme .....

Don't make me laugh. American politics are team sports, if a party embraces a policy, their voters will embrace it as well. Democratic politicians either do not understand the power they have over the policies that their base adopts, or they understand that and do not want to advance the causes that they claim to support. Moderates aren't really a thing, at least not how people think about them. Most "moderates" aligned with a party are party loyalists who will go with the party wherever it goes, and independent does not necessarily mean moderate or in the middle.

In a post Trump world, Marjorie Taylor Greene and her ilk are going to be fucking stars in the Republican party, and in the face of their insanity dragging the party (and therefore the center of the American political system) to the extreme right, the Democrats will sill be crying about how we can't move too far left because it might scare some people who already weren't voting for them.

[Lollygag]

2 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Don't make me laugh. American politics are team sports, if a party embraces a policy, their voters will embrace it as well. Democratic politicians either do not understand the power they have over the policies that their base adopts, or they understand that and do not want to advance the causes that they claim to support. Moderates aren't really a thing, at least not how people think about them. Most "moderates" aligned with a party are party loyalists who will go with the party wherever it goes, and independent does not necessarily mean moderate or in the middle.

This sounds more like angry lashing out as it's clearly not always true at all. And please no with the swing voters and moderates don't exist crap. Otherwise nothing would move.

4 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

In a post Trump world, Marjorie Taylor Greene and her ilk are going to be fucking stars in the Republican party, and in the face of their insanity dragging the party (and therefore the center of the American political system) to the extreme right, the Democrats will sill be crying about how we can't move too far left because it might scare some people who already weren't voting for them.

Looks that way but the rest reads as catastrophizing.

It's not about moving left or not. It's about doing it in a way that doesn't hand the Republicans the political equivalent of an AR-15 that destroys all opportunity to do so. If you want people to listen, speak a language they actually understand.

[DMC]

31 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I think you have some sort of nose suck going on.

I don't really know what that means but if you want to be a dick about things fine.  You asserted the open primary system was causing a "spiral" of extremism the left should realize.  I pointed out that wasn't the case.  You said it was the case with Trump and our current situation.  I pointed out that wasn't the case either.  You're still contending Republicans no longer winning from the middle is some type of new occurrence.  It's not. 

And now you're asserting Dems "make headway not by appealing to pols based on unity or whatever which we know doesn't work, but by splitting the base and changing that primary win calculation. Which the primary system exacerbates."  Um, Joe Biden won the primary precisely by adopting a unifying message - both within and without his party.  Moreover the Dem primary candidates in congressional races inarguably conformed to their situations and constituencies.  Steve Bullock, Mark Kelly, Cal Cunningham, John Hickenlooper, Theresa Greenfield.  All inarguably moderate.  So how the fuck is the primary system exacerbating anything?

31 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

And slow trends have tipping points which can trigger downward spirals. I didn't say it was a causal factor.

If you're arguing something "triggers" a downward spiral, you are by definition arguing it is a causal factor.

31 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Bold 2: Pointing out a problem is not equivalent to advocating some weird, backward alternative because of some false binary mentality.

I never said it did.  I pointed out the prior alternative is hardly a solution.  Do you have a tangible solution to perpetually increasing polarization?  Because open versus closed primary systems definitely ain't one of them.

[williamjm]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It really does make a lot of sense now that golf is the game Trump loves. You really can just cheat and lie to yourself on a scale no other major sport can allow. You can cheat at football, like your Patriots did for years, you can cheat at baseball, like David Ortiz using steroids, and not get punished for it, you can cheat at every sport really, but there is at least a little accountability. Not with golf. You can lie your ass off simply if no one cares. 

I was watching Goldfinger a few days ago and during the scene where Goldfinger insists on trying to blatantly cheat Bond at golf just because he can it felt like the sort of thing Trump might well do.

[Lollygag]

Just now, DMC said:

I don't really know what that means but if you want to be a dick about things fine.  You asserted the open primary system was causing a "spiral" of extremism the left should realize.  I pointed out that wasn't the case.  You said it was the case with Trump and our current situation.  I pointed out that wasn't the case either.  You're still contending Republicans no longer winning from the middle is some type of new occurrence.  It's not. 

And now you're asserting Dems "make headway not by appealing to pols based on unity or whatever which we know doesn't work, but by splitting the base and changing that primary win calculation. Which the primary system exacerbates."  Um, Joe Biden won the primary precisely by adopting a unifying message - but within and without his party.  Moreover the Dem primary candidates in congressional races inarguably conformed to their situations and constituencies.  Steve Bullock, Mark Kelly, Cal Cunningham, John Hickenlooper, Theresa Greenfield.  All inarguably moderate.  So how the fuck is the primary system exacerbating anything?

If you're arguing something "triggers" a downward spiral, you are by definition arguing it is a causal factor.

I never said it did.  I pointed out the prior alternative is hardly a solution.  Do you have a tangible solution to perpetually increasing polarization?  Because open versus closed primary systems definitely ain't one of them.

Nose suck isn't an offensive term. It's when a dog gets so lost in the details of a smell that they miss the big picture of other things going on around them. If I was being a bitch, I'd tell you that you *often* remind me of Don Quixote. If you want windmills, find someone else to play with.

As for the rest, reread my previous posts.

[GrimTuesday]

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

This sounds more like angry lashing out as it's clearly not always true at all. And please no with the swing voters and moderates don't exist crap. Otherwise nothing would move.

Looks that way but the rest reads as catastrophizing.

It's not about moving left or not. It's about doing it in a way that doesn't hand the Republicans the political equivalent of an AR-15 that destroys all opportunity to do so. If you want people to listen, speak a language they actually understand.

I'm not saying that swing voters and moderates don't exist, what I'm saying is that their political views are determined by how the political landscape looks rather than deeply held beliefs. Why the hell do you think that independents and swing voters remain pretty much constant even during the rightward shift of the Republican party? This is something that Republicans understand better than Democrats, namely that they can take an extreme and unpopular position, take a beating in the next election, and within the next few cycles, that position is normalized and has become part of the DNA of the Republican party leaving them back in the hunt.

Literally anything Democrats do is handing the GOP "the political equivalent of an AR-15". There is nothing so large or so small that the Republicans are not going to paint it as the greatest assault on American liberties since whatever the last insignificant thing the Democrats proposed. If you only do things that you have deemed to be safe and risk free, you're not going to get anything done and what little you do manage to achieve get destroyed by the GOP next time they are in power.

[Fury Resurrected]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't really know what that means but if you want to be a dick about things fine.  You asserted the open primary system was causing a "spiral" of extremism the left should realize.  I pointed out that wasn't the case.  You said it was the case with Trump and our current situation.  I pointed out that wasn't the case either.  You're still contending Republicans no longer winning from the middle is some type of new occurrence.  It's not. 

And now you're asserting Dems "make headway not by appealing to pols based on unity or whatever which we know doesn't work, but by splitting the base and changing that primary win calculation. Which the primary system exacerbates."  Um, Joe Biden won the primary precisely by adopting a unifying message - both within and without his party.  Moreover the Dem primary candidates in congressional races inarguably conformed to their situations and constituencies.  Steve Bullock, Mark Kelly, Cal Cunningham, John Hickenlooper, Theresa Greenfield.  All inarguably moderate.  So how the fuck is the primary system exacerbating anything?

If you're arguing something "triggers" a downward spiral, you are by definition arguing it is a causal factor.

I never said it did.  I pointed out the prior alternative is hardly a solution.  Do you have a tangible solution to perpetually increasing polarization?  Because open versus closed primary systems definitely ain't one of them.

Give up DMC, you know there’s no use 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Give up DMC, you know there’s no use 

Well I got compared to Don Quixote.  That's pretty cool.