Democratic (Party) Direction

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
A thread for discussing the Democrats' "message"/framing/etc.

This is the most important-seeming article I've read yet.

g@bbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:33 (fourteen years ago) link

Golden Globes follies 2006 (239 new answers)
Show Me the Love for SNL's "Live Duluth" sketch (105 new answers)
Democratic (Party) Direction (Unanswered)
Celebrity Big Brother 2006 - Thread Two - We all stand together? (165 new answers)
the mongrels don't want to play like that, they just want to talk to the sheepfuxors (254 new answers)
UK Watercooler Conversation 5: TOmorrow Sometimes Knows (322 new answers)

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:58 (fourteen years ago) link

That party is fucking dead and it's never coming back in a way that will change anything much.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:59 (fourteen years ago) link

maybe your beloved whig party will change something

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:02 (fourteen years ago) link

maybe your beloved dick will change something

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:07 (fourteen years ago) link

it's a long article. i got three phone calls while i was reading it!

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:23 (fourteen years ago) link

Pretty interesting stuff in that article -- I feel like I need to read it again to really digest all of it. The value shift it describes sort of reminds me of South Park -- the whole nihilistic individualistic thing -- is that what "South Park Conservatives" is about?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:27 (fourteen years ago) link

and yeah, a lot of it is pretty otm, but i fear for what america will be like if BOTH parties are simultaneously doing the "moral yardstick" shtick. yes it's apparent that americans want to hear about christianity and family values, but if the dems start playing that card in earnest, hoo boy.

i'm also not convinced about some of those salary numbers -- how is he defining "household"? and is he giving salaries in cities like new york and san francisco equal weight to ones in poor rural regions? how does income tax figure in? it's kinda vague.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:32 (fourteen years ago) link

For a while I've had the idea that the Democratic Party could improve its future by putting more money and resources into local party organizations, campus recruiting, things that give people real human connections to the party. People are much more likely to listen to their neighbor than some internet ad.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:36 (fourteen years ago) link

xpost

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year. The article gets it right that those people don't receive any government assistance, but that's just where the problem lies -- they end up too well off to get assistance but still unable to afford their debt and medical bills.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (fourteen years ago) link

2ndxpost

or hollywood actor

josh w (jbweb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (fourteen years ago) link

thanks for the link, reading now. glad to see there's a direction not chosen by Lakoff, I think he has no clue.

dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (fourteen years ago) link

The real problems with the Dems over-focus on economic policy are that 1) Policy is not very exciting to talk about and hard to understand, and 2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (fourteen years ago) link

2x post back to Josh: OTM

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:39 (fourteen years ago) link

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year.

the article suggested that the dividing line between affluent and poor was $50K per household, but for a married couple where both spouses work that only comes out to $25K per person, which isn't much once you figure in the high cost of living in america. plus, the article doesn't say who in these salary ranges pay for their own insurance and retirement funds.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:43 (fourteen years ago) link

2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

read: "we won't send your existing jobs to india."

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:45 (fourteen years ago) link

Right, but won't they?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:47 (fourteen years ago) link

it remains to be seen. let's get some dems in office and we'll find out.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:48 (fourteen years ago) link

Well, by not "send your existing jobs to India," I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that." I'd be very surprised if that actually happened under Democrats.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:50 (fourteen years ago) link

I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that."

it could happen, provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests. and monkeys might fly etc.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:52 (fourteen years ago) link

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

Polysix Bad Battery (cprek), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:53 (fourteen years ago) link

provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests

hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hohohohoHOHOHOHOHOHOOH
heheheheheHEHEHEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHASNORTSNORTSNORT!

sorry

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (fourteen years ago) link

OK, this is really depressing! not re: Democrats, but the direction of the country as a whole.

dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (fourteen years ago) link

Yeah, it is. I already had this vague fear that Americans were becoming these kind of paranoid, fat, lonely, nihilistic internet addicts who didn't talk to their neighbors.

Er wait, am I talking about Americans, or ILXors?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:57 (fourteen years ago) link

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

it is funny how many "affluent" "property owners" are up to their necks in mortgages and high-interest loans. it's like that commercial where the rich white suburban lawnmower dude says "i'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:58 (fourteen years ago) link

The most important part of the article is where they reveal that by telling people that you're espousing Christian values because you're actually a Christian, they decide they agree with you, even if they they claim Christian faith as well but are only down with the first half of the Bible.

In the vast swaths of country between the megapolises there are people raising families of 5 on $57,000 a year and doing it relatively painlessly. And yeah, economic issues don't mean a goddamned thing to them.

TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:00 (fourteen years ago) link

Plenty of families of five with $57,000 a year would still like a better health insurance system, you just can't win an election on that alone.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:03 (fourteen years ago) link

hey, gabbneb, thanks for posting that article. it takes some time to think about....

patrick bateman (mickeygraft), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:04 (fourteen years ago) link

"the American Environics team argued that the way to move voters on progressive issues is to sometimes set aside policies in favor of values"

Wow, what an incredible insight. Very novel!

"Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

I've long thought that if the Democratic party would focus their message on individualism (and the resulting freedom it implies) that they might get somewhere.

Today’s average American “worker” is, in short, very much on his or her own -- too prosperous to be eligible for most government assistance programs and, because of job laws that date back three quarters of a century, unable to unionize. Such isolation and atomization have not led to a new wave of social solidarity and economic populism, however. Instead, these changes have bred resentment toward those who do have outside aid, whether from government or from unions, and an escalating ethos of every man for himself. Against that ethos, voters have increasingly flocked to politicians who recognize that the combination of relative affluence and relative isolation has created an opening for cultural appeals.

"Every man for himself" has been an American credo for hundreds of years. It's the essence of competition, of capitalism, of industry. There's a bridge somewhere between individualism and community--is the Democratic party forcing people over a bridge or seeking one?

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Maybe they're taking shelter because they don't think it's an economy that's pitting man against man, it's shelter from the resulting culture war. What are "traditional, sensible middle-class values" anyway? The only hint we get from this article is that candidates should talk about religion and that will mitigate their stance on the death penalty (in Virginia.)

I am happy to see the wasteland that is the Democratic Party looking inward. The Republicans wouldn't dare stare into their own dark abyss.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:35 (fourteen years ago) link

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs. We've had a Republican president and congress for the past 5 years, and what have we got? A "jobless recovery". The brilliant Republican plan for creating jobs is to give more money back to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. They are still trying to sell the country on a supply-side economics platform. Look at Gov. Pataki's new budget in NY that came out this week. 24% of the tax cuts going to those who make over $200K per year. His rationale: it will create jobs and boost the economy. I think people need to start to question if that strategy really helps to create the kind of jobs this country needs. The one thing that we can be sure it does is make the rich even richer. I mean maybe if you're a BMW dealer or you sell Piaget watches, then these tax cuts are good for your business, but the average middle class type of jobs are probably not getting much of a boost.

As for the "average American household" that makes $60K a year, it would have been more informative to see the median income, because the average is skewed upwards by those at the top of the scale - ie., less than 50% of Americans make the "average" income.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:37 (fourteen years ago) link

Campus recruiting is definitely needed. I went to Rutgers, nicknamed "Kremlin on the Raritan" by some for its supposedly left-leanings, yet the Dems had almost no visibility on campus. Granted I went to school during the Nader years, when being a Democrat seemed like the lamest possible option. But the Dems need to pull talent at that level -- that's where Republicans end up with people like Rove.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:44 (fourteen years ago) link

Hmm, maybe "almost no visibility" is an exaggeration.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:45 (fourteen years ago) link

Re: Lakoff, despite the writer's early dismissal of him, I don't think the article suggests anything significantly different that what he's been talking about for years.

Lakoff's extensively written about the need for Democratic candidates and progressives in general to start explicitly talking about values. Also, for campaigns to work at creating more of an overall narrative for a candidate than just a laundry list of policies. It's only his work on the framing aspect that's received attention lately, not so much his work on defining the values systems that right/left folks tend to hold(e.g. "maintaining authority" vs "care & responsibility").

He's offered up Schwarzneggar's campaign as an example of a guy who ran entirely on narrative & perceived identity, and expressively refused to offer up any policy suggestions. Most folks don't have the time/energy/inclination to get into policy specifics, but if they trust your guy, they're trust him to take care of the details.

As he says,

"The pollsters didn’t understand it because they thought that people voted on the issues and on self-interest. Well, sometimes they do. But mostly they vote on their identity -- on persons that they trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire"

which connects to that aspirational bit that the article mentions.

Jim Wallis has talked about several of these same issues over the last year as well, especially with on the whole "onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows" bit.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:52 (fourteen years ago) link

Also, re: the poorer folks freaking out more about culture, I don't see the article acknowledging that it was a deliberate multi-year campaign on the part of conservertive politicos to get folks so het up about cultural issues that they didn't worry so much about the economics. It's a causal thing similar to Ethan's thread yesterday about outrage used for political gain.

Wallis has written about conversations his group has had with Frank Luntz and some other Repub pollsters who were quite open about their m.o. being to get voters so caught in such intense issues that they vote against their economic interest.

As other folks have pointed out, the Republicans have been better that bring the polls to them(gay marriage is the biggest thing you care about) vs the Democrats moving to where the polls now seem to be(well i guess we need to move rightward on gay marriage).

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:53 (fourteen years ago) link

interesting stuff. i don't really believe a lot of it, but i believe it's what people say, which still makes it significant. (i.e. a lot of people allegedly alarmed by the culture are also watching "desperate housewives" and "E!") it's not so much that the moral center is disgusted by the out-of-control culture, it's that a lot of people feel guilty about the very things in the culture that they participate in. massive moral cognitive dissonance, which the republicans exploit by convincing people that it's all someone else's fault (hollywood liberals, big-city elitists, gays gays gays). i'm not sure how the democrats can effectively tap into the same thing, and i sort of hate the idea that they need to, but maybe they don't have a choice.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:01 (fourteen years ago) link

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs.

That's the thing, innit? If you build up an entire apparatus to both promote & reinforce certain narratives, people will believe them even if they have no basis in fact. George W. Bush is steadfast & strong, Kerry's a weak-willed flip-flopper, Republicans are all about a smaller government, supply-side economics works, etc

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:06 (fourteen years ago) link

massive moral cognitive dissonance

oh fuck yeah this is a major bit of it, too. But since when did we start promoting self-reflection and critical thought?

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:07 (fourteen years ago) link

hard to promote self-reflection and critical thought when you're fighting hand to hand and desperate for power.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:39 (fourteen years ago) link

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:47 (fourteen years ago) link

very true. and I think that the number of folks who have to struggle is increasing.

xpost

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:49 (fourteen years ago) link

The Democrats are fucked - a weak, demoralized, decentralized party with no unifying political will, no narrative, and no reliable bases of power. The only thing keeping them around is the fact that the two-party system is so heavily institutionalized and entrenched. They're coasting on past glories and slowly squandering away all of their political resources so that they can become the eternally emasculated "opposition" party.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (fourteen years ago) link

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Please God, take Hilary quietly so she won't fuck up the party with a presidential campaign. WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE EVER.

elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (fourteen years ago) link

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas. the democrats at the moment seem disconnected from whatever constitutes their base, and even suspicious of it. it seems very top-down.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:55 (fourteen years ago) link

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

Huh? He's only been going this stuff in the press for about two years. Second, there are plenty of other folks who have made the connection, but have gotten shit for coverage(not fitting in with "religious = rightwing conservative" media narrative?), even when they got arrested for it on the Capitol steps.


For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

DLC-candidate-in-centrist-message shocker

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:56 (fourteen years ago) link

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas.

very much otm. The change will come from the outside.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:58 (fourteen years ago) link

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:00 (fourteen years ago) link

Clinton is the worst. I'd stay home before I'd vote for her. Jonathan Tasini, who is pretty great on a lot of issues, and is a pretty good speaker as well, is running against her in the primaries. I really hope he has an impact.

Re the direction of the party, past actions indicate the party will be quicker to line up behind someone with Clinton's politics as opposed to Tasini's. I'm not too hopeful when it comes to the future of the Dems.

TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:02 (fourteen years ago) link

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections

do you think it's necessary for dems to use the religious right's language ("morals" and "values")? would a less-loaded word like "ethics" skew too liberal?

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:03 (fourteen years ago) link

I think values do matter to a lot of voters

my question is, when do they not? unless a voter has completely descended into some cynical nihilism, of course.

i mean, yeah, "values" has come to signify a very specific set of values, which just goes to further show that democratic types do need to start talking about theirs.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:05 (fourteen years ago) link

haha "what's the difference between morals, and ethics..."

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:06 (fourteen years ago) link

why?

president of my cat (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 13 October 2020 04:59 (two weeks ago) link

Either Sanders or Warren would be making a much better case for their election, on top of the "anyone but Trump" campaign that Trump is aggressively running on Biden's behalf. The combination should balance out individual voter antipathy towards either.

Covidiots from UHF (sic), Tuesday, 13 October 2020 05:43 (two weeks ago) link

Responses to that Bernie video are fucking depressing, telling myself those are mostly bots

Evans on Hammond (evol j), Tuesday, 13 October 2020 07:25 (two weeks ago) link

Impressive to see so many people in the replies who still don’t comprehend the existence of the Electoral College.

Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Tuesday, 13 October 2020 07:41 (two weeks ago) link

why?

I think she doesn't have the "I'm an extremely normal old white guy who will run things competently and who will allow you to go back to not thinking about politics" thing that is very strong for Biden with suburban voters (and maybe older voters, too, though I think with that population it's just as much Trump's no-longer-concealable contempt for the idea that their lives are worth anything.) And she doesn't have Sanders's ability to super-activate young voters and "both parties are bad" voters (which includes left voters but also a much bigger group of "political correctness is bad and corporations are too powerful and there should be term limits" type voters, who broke big for Trump in 2016.) What does Warren have? She has what Clinton had, basically. Maybe a little more thanks to suburban Trump fatigue. I guess she'd maybe be ahead. But not by much. Who are the people who really see her as the answer? Middle-aged white people with advanced degrees, and there just aren't that many of us.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 18:13 (two weeks ago) link

who still don’t comprehend the existence of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is definitely the controlling factor in who wins the job, and winning the job is the whole point. However, entering the job as the recipient of a popular vote landslide gives you more leverage than narrowly squeaking in just because you won Wyoming, Alaska, the Dakotas and Utah. Politicians notice such things and play their hands according to the prevailing winds.

the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 18:27 (two weeks ago) link

That's an enormous amount of bullshit. Dubya and Trump lost the popular vote and yet here we are. Obama had the largest popular vote margin since the '80s and yet here we are.

In any case, failure to give Biden the proper mandate (lol) would not be the same as the performative "if you don't vote for Biden, you're voting for Trump."

Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 18:38 (two weeks ago) link

I agree, the idea that a popular mandate has an actual bearing on governance and law making is mostly a fantasy.

Mr. Cacciatore (Moodles), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 18:46 (two weeks ago) link

don't remember the GOP granting Obama or Bill Clinton any leverage

Wayne Grotski (symsymsym), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 18:53 (two weeks ago) link

Republicans always claim mandate even if the numbers say ‘squeaker’. Democrats never claim mandate even in landslide conditions.

santa clause four (suzy), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 19:09 (two weeks ago) link

Real mandates come with coat tails. Obama was not the beneficiary of a landslide election, even with the financial crisis fast gaining speed in October, 2008. A real landslide brings both chambers of Congress with it and enough new faces who are beholden to you that you can push through your agenda. Clinton was a minority president in 1992, with Ross Perot splitting the vote.

Reagan chose to pretend he had a mandate in 1980, but he did most of his damage (like Trump) through executive action or by playing the media skillfully to win public support for horrible policies, like deregulation and union busting. His real power was his speaking ability.

Biden seems destined to have no coat tails. Trump may be able to generate a 'negative coat tail' effect, but that is a long shot. I'd be ecstatic with simply retaking the Senate by 51-49, with Harris as the tie-breaker in reserve.

the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 19:10 (two weeks ago) link

So, outside of swing states, it doesn't actually matter if you vote for Biden (or Democrat X) because landslides don't actually grant the leverage you referred to earlier, having one-party control of Congress in alignment does. (Obama '08 had Congress IIRC.)

Thus "not voting for Biden" is not actually "a vote for Trump" as the people who pretend the EC doesn't exist every four years claim.

Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 19:15 (two weeks ago) link

Thus "not voting for Biden" is not actually "a vote for Trump"

The people you are dismissing as wrong are not entirely wrong, but mathematically speaking, the value of one vote not cast against you is not "one vote", but a ratio, based on the number of votes cast and the number of potential voters. The larger the number of non-votes, the less value each non-vote has to the outcome.

the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 19:31 (two weeks ago) link

an exchange between aimless and milo z. how riveting

Give me a Chad Smith-type feel (map), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 19:31 (two weeks ago) link

as we used to say, another party heard from

the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 19:37 (two weeks ago) link

I agree, the idea that a popular mandate has an actual bearing on governance and law making is mostly a fantasy.

Republicans always claim mandate even if the numbers say ‘squeaker’. Democrats never claim mandate even in landslide conditions.

This US political commentator taught me about Reagan's mandate

(a few years before a new right-wing PM in Australia claimed that winning the lower house by two votes out of 149, and not gaining the Senate for another nine years, gave him a mandate)

Covidiots from UHF (sic), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 20:29 (two weeks ago) link

two votes seats

Covidiots from UHF (sic), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 20:31 (two weeks ago) link

Per Aimless’s logic, if everyone in, say Wisconsin, was going to just not fill out the presidential box on the ballot when they could vote for Biden, they can feel less guilt in a second Trump term because everyone else did it.

Not my stance, but an interesting undertaking

mh, Thursday, 15 October 2020 01:57 (two weeks ago) link

My logic, if I took the time to perfect it, would be an equation that expressed the exact degree to which any vote or non-vote contributed to an election's outcome, based on a complex of variables, including the total of potential votes, the outcome, the total of votes for each of the top two vote-getters, and the total of non-votes for either of the top two, where any votes cast for candidates other than the top two would be wrapped into the total of non-votes.

It has nothing to do with guilt. People are allowed to vote or not vote according to their idea of the best choice. But it is mathematically obvious that voluntarily not voting when you could vote does have a consequence to election outcomes, and the exact consequences of a non-vote could be measured in any election. It's just not the blissful simplicity of "refusing to vote for Biden is a vote for Trump".

the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless), Thursday, 15 October 2020 02:12 (two weeks ago) link

I think you could calculate the consequences of a non-vote on an election that has already happened. I don't know about trying to come up with that number (?) beforehand.

DJI, Thursday, 15 October 2020 03:40 (two weeks ago) link

You can see the probability any one vote determines the outcome of the election here. It’s a remote possibility everywhere but it’s really remote in some places, generally states that are very blue/red or very large or both: https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president (half way down the page, sort by “chance of voter deciding election”). The number isn’t useful in an absolute sense but it does give a feeling of scale for what’s a stake when someone in like DC chooses not to vote vs someone in New Hampshire or PA or whatever.

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Thursday, 15 October 2020 03:41 (two weeks ago) link

The heat map from Slate was good:

https://compote.slate.com/images/513f1aaa-c7d5-41ab-bf81-439efeb625c5.jpg

I mean, basically it's just another way of pointing out that swing sates are important.

DJI, Thursday, 15 October 2020 03:46 (two weeks ago) link

And I guess if you want to get technical: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/gelmankatzbafumi.pdf

DJI, Thursday, 15 October 2020 03:48 (two weeks ago) link

Beforehand all the necessary variables are unknown values. My main point is that both individual votes and individual non-votes do individually influence election outcomes to a measurable amount, even if the exact amount is not predictable ahead and can only be calculated accurately afterward.

the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless), Thursday, 15 October 2020 03:49 (two weeks ago) link

i mean, some elections have been decided by 10 votes or less, but has any election been decided by a single vote?

proof: your vote doesn't matter in any election

president of my cat (Karl Malone), Thursday, 15 October 2020 03:53 (two weeks ago) link

I mean, it assumes you talk to no one else and your voice in your social circle is worthless. I understand the stance of not voting, voting for a third party, whatever. But I will never live long enough to perfect my logic on this and I simply live in a so-called swing state and drummed the importance of voting into my family and peers enough that they were asking me this week whether I had voted yet, because they had.

mh, Thursday, 15 October 2020 03:54 (two weeks ago) link

I voted for Aimless obvs

mh, Thursday, 15 October 2020 03:55 (two weeks ago) link

A vote for Aimless is the same as voting for Trump*.

*according to certain unnamed persons who converse with milo z.

the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless), Thursday, 15 October 2020 04:00 (two weeks ago) link

"is a vote for Trump"
About 850,000 results (0.67 seconds)

Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Thursday, 15 October 2020 04:09 (two weeks ago) link

i voted for tom pagnozzi

president of my cat (Karl Malone), Thursday, 15 October 2020 04:31 (two weeks ago) link

If one hates Trump enough to not vote for him, voting for Biden is like not voting for Trump twice.

nickn, Thursday, 15 October 2020 05:02 (two weeks ago) link

she better not

Dianne Feinstein is raising money for a run in 2024, when she'll be 91 years old, and actual human beings have given her $40,000 in campaign contributions towards this goal. Political giving is the weirdest world I know pic.twitter.com/WKH3TJfh16

— Pinboard (@Pinboard) October 15, 2020

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Thursday, 15 October 2020 06:19 (two weeks ago) link

She's got a ways to go to beat Strom Thurmond's record

Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Thursday, 15 October 2020 06:31 (two weeks ago) link

sure, but she really connects with young people in California

president of my cat (Karl Malone), Thursday, 15 October 2020 14:07 (two weeks ago) link

absolute psychopaths


good Dollop ep on Dianne Feinstein

A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Thursday, 15 October 2020 14:13 (two weeks ago) link

As I understand it, a famous name draws money and when you don't run that money gets used for other Dem candidates so it makes total sense for Feinstein to be fundraising under her name whether she's running or (hopefully) not

Guayaquil (eephus!), Thursday, 15 October 2020 15:30 (two weeks ago) link

Democrats' two likeliest paths forward, as I see it:

1. Win in November, decline to expand the court, enact a bunch of laws, lose the Senate in 2022, watch helplessly as the Supreme Court strikes down all their new laws in 2023.

2. Expand the court and save democracy.

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) October 15, 2020

Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Friday, 16 October 2020 01:06 (two weeks ago) link

otm

Patriotic Goiter (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 16 October 2020 01:08 (two weeks ago) link

is the senate map particularly bad for Dems in 2022? or should we just assume the customary irritation for the party occupying the WH?

A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Friday, 16 October 2020 01:18 (two weeks ago) link

North Carolina has an open seat coming up in 2022, hopefully we can find a Dem to run who isn’t gunning to be the dixieland version of Anthony Weiner

Evans on Hammond (evol j), Friday, 16 October 2020 01:40 (two weeks ago) link

more like dick-see land am I right

it bangs for thee (Simon H.), Friday, 16 October 2020 01:46 (two weeks ago) link

xp Customary irritation plus slow recovery?

Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Friday, 16 October 2020 01:50 (two weeks ago) link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Potentially_competitive_races.

of the states voting in 2022, democrats hold these with < 55% of the vote (i.e. < 10ish% majority):

nevada
new hampshire
colorado
illinois

republicans hold these with <55% of the vote

alaska
florida
indiana
missouri
north carolina (burr retiring so no incumbent advantage)
pennsylvania (toomey retiring so no incumbent advantage)
wisconsin

and then whoever wins arizona (probably democrat) and georgia in january (probably republican)

so it's not as good a set of states as this year, but it's pretty good.

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 16 October 2020 05:08 (two weeks ago) link

two weeks pass...

my collection is complete pic.twitter.com/9qonvM2AEk

— beguiling bug (@runolgarun) October 31, 2020

edited for dog profanity (sic), Saturday, 31 October 2020 09:45 (twelve hours ago) link

We should remind ourselves of a hugely important development: if the Dems win the WH and Senate, Dems control the census, thus redistricting. The implications are uh enormous.

Patriotic Goiter (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 31 October 2020 11:26 (ten hours ago) link

also, this will not happen at all, but it might lead to a rare opportunity to try to reform/replace the entire system of state-driven, partisan-driven districting (whoever wins the election in a year that ends with a 0 gets to screw half the people in their state for the ensuing decade). just for the sake of a wildly hypothetical scenario, let's imagine the replacement for districting is some sort of computer-driven, non-partisan allocator.

first, obviously, reform will never happen while republicans are in power. they gerrymander the living fuck out of every state they can, and then brag about it as they toast and lick each other's open sores behind closed doors. they benefit from the current system, they will fight tooth-and-nail to keep it in place.

secondly, if we accept that democrats will have to work alone, most republicans and their supporters will assume the worst of their intentions (again, because they assume that democrats act as republicans do, which is not a bad assumption). the only way to get around that is to set the implementation date for reform in the future, at a date when neither party can be confident of being in or out of power. if they want to keep the districting on the 10s (2030, 2040, etc...) then then can set 2030 as the year it goes into effect - the mid-term of whoever is elected in 2028 (god help us all).

if there's a chance of this happening, it has to happen in the first years of 2020, during this biden term.

(and they won't, and we'll be talking about how fucked we are by gerrymandering again in 2029)

just another 3-pinnochio post by (Karl Malone), Saturday, 31 October 2020 15:36 (six hours ago) link

Great idea, Karl, but whatever system you put in place, it can be tossed out and replaced by whoever sits in power in a year ending in zero.

The Roberts court eviscerated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a while back, and has deliberately avoided placing limits on gerrymandering when it had the chance to do so. The chance of any new federal law intervening in gerrymandering making it past this version of the court are nil.

the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless), Saturday, 31 October 2020 15:50 (six hours ago) link

again, because they assume that democrats act as republicans do, which is not a bad assumption

Or just look at reality, where (some, not all) Virginia Democrats are backing off their support for redistricting reform now that they're in charge

https://wamu.org/story/20/10/09/democrats-virginia-reject-redistricting-reform/

The good news about this sad development is that it strengthens bipartisan support for ending gerrymandering when Republicans grasp it can and will be done to them, too.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Saturday, 31 October 2020 16:00 (six hours ago) link

xp i agree, it's bleak. :(

eephus, you're right that democrats do it too. which is another reason the chances of passing anything, anywhere, are so low: the people who could hypothetically change things are also the people who have managed to benefit from the current system, no matter how inequitable it is for everyone else.

but i think that, like many things with republicans and democrats, yes, "both sides do it", but one side (republicans) takes it to leeeeeeeeethal and absurd extremes, orders of magnitude worse than democrats, and then lies whenever confronted about it, rarely being pushed too hard on it. take the filibuster, for example. i listened to mcconnell go on at length (just before the vote on ACB) about the history of treachery in the senate, and how it was the democrats abuse of the filibuster in the bush era that led everything to the current moment. and how "he was there", so "he knows what happened".

so it is with gerrymandering, at least in my lifetime. both sides abuse it. but one abuses the holy living fuck out of it

just another 3-pinnochio post by (Karl Malone), Saturday, 31 October 2020 16:37 (five hours ago) link

Eephus

Or just look at reality, where (some, not all) Virginia Democrats are backing off their support for redistricting reform now that they're in charge

It's complicated. The VA dem position is not that there doesn't need to be reform. It's that THIS proposed reform is toothless and wrong-headed.

Not all reforms are created equal..

Anaïs Ninja (Ye Mad Puffin), Saturday, 31 October 2020 16:52 (five hours ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.