|
Post by Amadan on Feb 12, 2017 15:04:40 GMT -5
Meet the press explored this subject today. Todd interviewed Jim Webb and his opinion was the Democrats have moved so far left they've abandoned centrists and Anyone who stays moderate is considered unworthy. He also sees the Dems not changing their fate, mainly by clinging to identity politics. I think this is particularly interesting in contrast to the common wisdom that's been circulating for years, right up to the election, that the Republican Party, and conservativism in general, is doomed due to demographics. That old white people are becoming a narrower and narrower slice of the electorate, and that Millennials trend younger, browner, and queerer and would inevitably vote Democrat. Some are still pushing this argument - that Trump was the "last gasp" of white majority voters and this demographic inevitability will take hold from now on. But I don't see it. I hang out with a fairly working class crowd in my neighborhood, and most of the younger people in that crowd were Trump supporters. The Milleninials among my largely educated, white-collar coworkers, of course, are heavily anti-Trump. And therein lies the gap - the Millennials who are writing for online magazines, posting on blogs and Reddit, agitating on campus, don't even see the ones who aren't in their demographic. They simply can't believe that there are people out there supporting Trump who aren't cranky old white guys.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 12, 2017 15:19:05 GMT -5
I wasn't dismissing anything, I was disagreeing with you, based on your BROAD CLAIM of Repubs and Dems and how they vote. Christ on a cracker, I really do understand, and I think you're twisting yourself into a pretzel to make what you originally said sound like what you want it to say now. I followed him just fine. He made a broad claim supported by statistical voting trends. You haven't.... actually offered a rebuttal, other than that you don't think it applied to the 2016 election because reasons. What is your argument, exactly? Opty's claim is basically that Republicans more consistently turn out to support their candidates regardless of pre-election shenanigans and promises than Democrats do. Democrats are more likely to make lots of noise before the election and not actually turn up to vote. The links he posted support that conclusion. If you fuck disagree with it fuck, please fuck to be explaining fuck why. Opty originally said, Repubs fall in line; Dems fall in love. I disagreed. (And sorry, but just because Bill Clinton said it doesn't make it true.) Opty originally said, Repubs don't care about the shenanigans of their candidates; Dems basically have hissy fits and stay home when there are only 9/10 things present in their candidate that they want. Opty said those things, and he wasn't talking about 2018. He mentioned 2018 as concerning at the end of that post. (I'm concerned too; not arguing that.) My argument, exactly, is that I disagree that Repubs fall in line; Dems fall in love. Like I said in my original response, if this is true, then why didn't Romney win in 2012? Repubs would have fallen in line, and there should have been enough hissy-fitters because Obama hadn't, by that point, fulfilled even 5 out of 10 of his promises. If this is true, why did McCain lose so badly, if all the Repubs were falling in line? And if Republicans fall "in line" rather than "in love," then why I am surrounded by Trump love here in my red county everywhere I look? My mother thinks Trump is the goddamned savior of the world, sent by Jesus himself. My next-door neighbor has a life-sized cardboard cutout of Trump. Trump MAGA bumper stickers abound. People are practically ejaculating over Trump. Not only do they "not care" about Trump's faults, they don't even think they're faults. They think he's awesome in every way. That's not falling in line; that's falling in love. IMO. Conversely, I think a lot of Dems "fell in line" and voted for Hillary, even though she wasn't their first choice. That opinion was common pre-election. Maybe it just depends where you live. Lastly, I object to this idea that Dems make a lot of noise and then stay home and don't vote. The ones who are making a lot of noise are probably voting. Presuming that the same subset of Dems who were making a lot of noise were sitting on their asses on election day is pretty weak. And that's just one problem with lumping Dems (or Repubs) into a monolithic group.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 12, 2017 15:24:51 GMT -5
Opty originally said, Repubs fall in line; Dems fall in love. I disagreed. (And sorry, but just because Bill Clinton said it doesn't make it true.) Opty originally said, Repubs don't care about the shenanigans of their candidates; Dems basically have hissy fits and stay home when there are only 9/10 things present in their candidate that they want. Opty said those things, and he wasn't talking about 2018. He mentioned 2018 as concerning at the end of that post. (I'm concerned too; not arguing that.) My argument, exactly, is that I disagree that Repubs fall in line; Dems fall in love. Like I said in my original response, if this is true, then why didn't Romney win in 2012? Repubs would have fallen in line, and there should have been enough hissy-fitters because Obama hadn't, by that point, fulfilled even 5 out of 10 of his promises. If this is true, why did McCain lose so badly, if all the Repubs were falling in line? And that's just one problem with lumping Dems (or Repubs) into a monolithic group. You do understand, don't you, that when someone makes a generalization, that they state is a generalization, that does not mean it is 100% true of every single member of the group being generalized about? The fact that he posted links supporting the general claim indicated that it is generally true, not that every single Republican falls in line and every single Democrat does not. Your "refutation" - that if this were true, then Republicans would win 100% of the time - is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 12, 2017 15:46:20 GMT -5
And, also, Christine's "rebuttal" totally ignores the fact that the Dems lost control of Congress in 2010, and have failed to regain control since. They lost massively in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. That pattern was echoed across the nation in state governments and governor's races.
So...um...yeah, Republicans lost two Presidential elections out of the last 3. But, so what? They (unfortunately) overwhelmingly won where it actually matters: federal and state Congresses and Governorships.
So, again, you have lost this argument. You lost it with your first response to me. My position is thoroughly backed up by evidence (which I provided and you still have not) and reality.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 12, 2017 15:49:58 GMT -5
Opty originally said, Repubs fall in line; Dems fall in love. I disagreed. (And sorry, but just because Bill Clinton said it doesn't make it true.) Opty originally said, Repubs don't care about the shenanigans of their candidates; Dems basically have hissy fits and stay home when there are only 9/10 things present in their candidate that they want. Opty said those things, and he wasn't talking about 2018. He mentioned 2018 as concerning at the end of that post. (I'm concerned too; not arguing that.) My argument, exactly, is that I disagree that Repubs fall in line; Dems fall in love. Like I said in my original response, if this is true, then why didn't Romney win in 2012? Repubs would have fallen in line, and there should have been enough hissy-fitters because Obama hadn't, by that point, fulfilled even 5 out of 10 of his promises. If this is true, why did McCain lose so badly, if all the Repubs were falling in line? And that's just one problem with lumping Dems (or Repubs) into a monolithic group. You do understand, don't you, that when someone makes a generalization, that they state is a generalization, that does not mean it is 100% true of every single member of the group being generalized about? The fact that he posted links supporting the general claim indicated that it is generally true, not that every single Republican falls in line and every single Democrat does not. Your "refutation" - that if this were true, then Republicans would win 100% of the time - is ridiculous. That was not my refutation. I realize that the view of Dems/Repubs doesn't mean one thinks it of every single Dem/Repub. And for all the statistics Opty or anyone else posts, they don't provide the "why" of anything. That's subject to interpretation. Unless one is going to ask people why, and tally those responses, it's erroneous to claim one has proven one's opinion on the matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2017 16:13:33 GMT -5
Meet the press explored this subject today. Todd interviewed Jim Webb and his opinion was the Democrats have moved so far left they've abandoned centrists and Anyone who stays moderate is considered unworthy. He also sees the Dems not changing their fate, mainly by clinging to identity politics. Todd also interviewed Stephen Miller and Bernie Sanders. The difference on how each was treated was telling of Todd's bias. Perhaps, but Republicans have also moved to the right. Once upon a time, a Republican-controlled Senate committee rejected Sessions as a judge. And a couple of decades ago, some Republicans were advocating a healthcare bill that smelled a lot like Obamacare in some important ways. The current party isn't Reagan's party. I don't even think it's W's. I think the alt-right has hijacked the Republican party, and they fucking scare hell out of me. I will agree, though -- a lot of people feel alienated by both parties.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 12, 2017 16:23:08 GMT -5
That was not my refutation. I realize that the view of Dems/Repubs doesn't mean one thinks it of every single Dem/Repub. And for all the statistics Opty or anyone else posts, they don't provide the "why" of anything. That's subject to interpretation. Unless one is going to ask people why, and tally those responses, it's erroneous to claim one has proven one's opinion on the matter. What is your refutation? As far as I can tell, it's "This isn't true 100% of the time and I have anecdotes." Opty's stats may not prove the "why" but they are pretty good evidence for it. Your counter-argument is.... Nyuh-uh?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 12, 2017 16:32:28 GMT -5
No, they really aren't.
I've made my points as best as I can. You're just being jerkish now; clearly, you are seeking to belittle and not to understand.
I'll leave you to it.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Feb 12, 2017 17:13:22 GMT -5
Meet the press explored this subject today. Todd interviewed Jim Webb and his opinion was the Democrats have moved so far left they've abandoned centrists and Anyone who stays moderate is considered unworthy. He also sees the Dems not changing their fate, mainly by clinging to identity politics. Todd also interviewed Stephen Miller and Bernie Sanders. The difference on how each was treated was telling of Todd's bias. Perhaps, but Republicans have also moved to the right. Once upon a time, a Republican-controlled Senate committee rejected Sessions as a judge. And a couple of decades ago, some Republicans were advocating a healthcare bill that smelled a lot like Obamacare in some important ways. The current party isn't Reagan's party. I don't even think it's W's. I think the alt-right has hijacked the Republican party, and they fucking scare hell out of me. I will agree, though -- a lot of people feel alienated by both parties. I can't refute that. Here's a transcript of both Webb and Sanders from the show. www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/amp/sanders-rejects-effort-draft-him-starting-new-political-party-n719931Bernie has also stated he won't start a new party.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 12, 2017 18:40:34 GMT -5
And for all the statistics Opty or anyone else posts, they don't provide the "why" of anything. That's subject to interpretation. Unless one is going to ask people why, and tally those responses, it's erroneous to claim one has proven one's opinion on the matter. Sure, statistics don't provide concrete "whys". But when trying to describe general trends, they are a valid form of evidence. In countering an argument, one still needs to account for those statistics, ether with an alternate explanation for them, or by showing why they are wrong/flawed, I think. I'm following your points, and in fact I think there's something, with regard to monolithic groups. Specifically, I think there might be other factors: demographic ones like education, income, age, and so forth. And I think that breaking all this down by those groups with respect to Rs and Ds would produce some overlaps leading to people who are likely to "fall in line," along with ones who are likely to "fall in love." There'd be Rs and Ds in both. But my opinion is--buttressed by the general stats--that there are far more Rs in the first group and far more Ds in the second.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 12, 2017 20:10:20 GMT -5
That's fair. I'll even agree up to a point, that there are more Rs in the first group and more D's in the second (as opposed to far more), due to those demographics you mentioned. But.. "Dems" do X and "Repubs" do Y? Yeah, no.
My counter explanation (though I don't think a counter explanation is actually needed to debunk a bad explanation) is that blue states turned red because (1) folks on the left thought Hillary would win regardless, due to the poll numbers, and while, yes, they were probably not "in love" with Hillary, they didn't feel any sense of impending doom, and (2) a whole new swath of people who either rarely/never bothered to vote before or maybe even voted for Obama previously were downright pissed at Hillary and/or so enamored of Trump that they showed up in droves. (His rallies were almost cult-like. I remember thinking, all of these people... how can the polls be showing Trump down? But they did. And the assumption was that Trump fans were outliers.)
So if the criticism had been that Dems were too complacent, or not vigilant enough, I'd have to agree. But the idea that they weren't "in love" so they didn't give a damn is a reach, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 12, 2017 23:21:21 GMT -5
That's fair. I'll even agree up to a point, that there are more Rs in the first group and more D's in the second (as opposed to far more), due to those demographics you mentioned. But.. "Dems" do X and "Repubs" do Y? Yeah, no. My counter explanation (though I don't think a counter explanation is actually needed to debunk a bad explanation) is that blue states turned red because (1) folks on the left thought Hillary would win regardless, due to the poll numbers, and while, yes, they were probably not "in love" with Hillary, they didn't feel any sense of impending doom, and (2) a whole new swath of people who either rarely/never bothered to vote before or maybe even voted for Obama previously were downright pissed at Hillary and/or so enamored of Trump that they showed up in droves. (His rallies were almost cult-like. I remember thinking, all of these people... how can the polls be showing Trump down? But they did. And the assumption was that Trump fans were outliers.) So if the criticism had been that Dems were too complacent, or not vigilant enough, I'd have to agree. But the idea that they weren't "in love" so they didn't give a damn is a reach, imo. Your point #1 actually supports what I've been saying. The adage that dems fall in love and repubs fall in line is expressing the sentiment that Dems often get all fired up at different times between (and before) elections, but then a lot of them fail to actually vote on election day (which I have already proven). For Repubs, whether they like or dislike their candidate, their voting patterns are pretty consistent in that most of them still show up to support their candidates at election time (which I have also already proven). Hell, just look at how many of the Republican candidates who virulently railed against Trump throughout the primaries - saying what a miserable person, liar, and fraud that he is - almost all did 180s and gave him near-full-throated support (and some even campaigned for him) after he won the nomination (e.g., Priebus, Rubio, Perry, Cruz, Chris Christie, etc.). As to your point #2, you have no evidence whatsoever to support that "counter explanation." In fact, I've already provided evidence that voter turnout (as a percentage of eligible voters) was down this past election. So, no, I doubt that "a whole new swath of people...showed up in droves." There's no evidence to support this. Also, yet again, you're still trying to counter the entire thing by focusing only on the 2016 Presidential election while ignoring the fact that, over the past 6 years, Dems have lost (embarassingly) in every other branch of government at the federal and state levels, throughout most of the country. Therefore, my argument still stands not only because it reflects reality but because it is also supported by evidence (unlike your position). I want you to watch this video. The people in it that the CNN reporter is talking to are using the same types of rationalizations to defend their incorrect positions that you have used throughout this thread: www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/01/cnn-anchor-stunned-trump-supporter-newday.cnn
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 13, 2017 7:36:56 GMT -5
That's fair. I'll even agree up to a point, that there are more Rs in the first group and more D's in the second (as opposed to far more), due to those demographics you mentioned. But.. "Dems" do X and "Repubs" do Y? Yeah, no. My counter explanation (though I don't think a counter explanation is actually needed to debunk a bad explanation) is that blue states turned red because (1) folks on the left thought Hillary would win regardless, due to the poll numbers, and while, yes, they were probably not "in love" with Hillary, they didn't feel any sense of impending doom, and (2) a whole new swath of people who either rarely/never bothered to vote before or maybe even voted for Obama previously were downright pissed at Hillary and/or so enamored of Trump that they showed up in droves. (His rallies were almost cult-like. I remember thinking, all of these people... how can the polls be showing Trump down? But they did. And the assumption was that Trump fans were outliers.) So if the criticism had been that Dems were too complacent, or not vigilant enough, I'd have to agree. But the idea that they weren't "in love" so they didn't give a damn is a reach, imo. Well, I think you are insisting on taking the adage as an absolute, still, that must be applied to every single Dem or Repub if it is applied to any of them at all. Regardless, as Opty says , you are seemingly stuck on the 2016 Presidential race. And if there was ever an outlier of a political race, it was this one. But in that regard, most certainly there were people who thought Hillary would win, regardless. But come one, there were plenty of people who thought that about Obama in 2008 and 2012. As to your second point, as Opty has noted Trump didn't win because of increased turnout. I think Trump did get some voters who were either first-timers or who hadn't been politically active in a long time, but there was no massive influx of this that won him the election. Indeed, in places like Michigan it's apparent that it was the opposite: lack of turnout cost Clinton big time. That goes back to the adage (which is still imperfect), to your first point: whether or not people thought Clinton was going to win, that's were there was a swath or people, people who weren't motivated to vote for Clinton because they didn't like her, even though they were otherwise core Dem voters (again, Michigan very clearly bears this out). And beyond all that, there is I think one true thing that people--Dems mostly--seem unable to accept: Clinton SUCKED as a Presidential Candidate. She was just awful. She was awful in 2008 and she was no better in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 13, 2017 21:24:24 GMT -5
Your point #1 actually supports what I've been saying. No, it doesn't. It allows that some Dems didn't "fall in love" with Hillary, and some of them didn't vote, but not because they were throwing a hissy fit because only 9/10 of their demands were being met. You characterize Dems as being emotional and flighty. Sure, some are, but that's because they're people, not because they're Democrats. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by around 3 million. How is that "Dems needing to fall in love"? Fewer Dems voted; fine. But you're basically assigning a negative attribute to "Dems" by and large that isn't warranted. I'm not arguing your "stats"; I'm arguing your conclusion based on them. You can't prove it, you just think it's the most logical explanation, and, bonus points, it's fits your narrative of "the left." And I find it hilarious that in some of your other, um, writings, you're arguing for people to not lump Trump voters into a single, broad category, and yet here you are, relegating a majority of Dems into a single, broad category. Also? That's what YOU sound like, to me. Those folks are saying that because Clinton won the vote by 3 million, it must've been 3 million illegal immigrants who voted for her. YOU'RE saying that because Democrat turnout is down, Dems must need to fall in love and they're all just throwing hissy fits. As far as "only addressing" 2016; I have addressed 2008 and 2012. Crickets from anyone rebutting my questions about those elections. As far as midterms, governors, etc., I think fewer people overall (outside of old white people, who also show up at HOA meetings to vote) think these elections "matter," and YES, that is a problem. But it's not the problem of "not falling in love" or throwing hissy fits, it's the problem of glorifying the presidential election and missing out on the big picture.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 13, 2017 21:36:36 GMT -5
Here is a link re: first time voters in 2016. I could have sworn rob had posted something a while back about first time voters being significant in this election, too, but I can't find the post.
|
|