Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-12-2019, 10:59 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,799

Progressives have NOT taken over the Democratic Party


No matter how many times they repeat the mantra that they have. And Biden’s big surge has been a wakeup call for those in the media who had been fooled (mostly by Twitter) into believing in their ascendance:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...democrats.html
Quote:
News accounts have emphasized the growing share of self-identified liberals in the party as well as the diminishing stigma of socialism among younger Democrats. But political parties are large groups of people, and they change very slowly. Socialism may be growing less unpopular, but it remains quite unpopular. In a recent poll, just 10 percent of Americans held a positive opinion of socialism, and 29 percent said it is compatible with American values (against 57 percent saying otherwise). While the liberal share of the Democratic electorate is rising, it’s only just caught up to the combined share of Democrats who call themselves moderate or conservative. A small majority of Democrats say they wish the party would move in a more moderate direction.

In the New York Times, Frank Bruni suggested that Biden’s “party can’t get enough of the word progressive, but he’s regressive, symbolizing a step back to an administration past.” Yet, according to another recent poll, it seems most Democrats can get enough of the word progressive and also are quite fond of the administration in which Biden served: When Democrats were offered a choice of different ideological labels, “socialist” and “democratic socialist” each drew 1 and 6 percent, respectively, and “progressive Democrat” got 5 percent. Sixteen percent of respondents chose “moderate Democrat,” and 20 percent of them picked “Obama Democrat.”

So why did the media spend the past few years getting the state of the Democratic Party so wrong? One reason is that a numbers of factions had an incentive to hype the rise of the left. The left itself came out of 2016 giddy with its conviction that Sanders lost to Hillary Clinton only out of inertia (or even, the more radical members of the movement claimed, party manipulation). Sanders had won the young, and therefore the future.

In reality, Sanders received lots of votes from people who either appreciated his earnest persona or objected to Clinton for a variety of reasons, including her being too liberal. (Sanders ran up the vote in places like West Virginia and Oklahoma with many of the same conservative Democrats who had supported Clinton over Barack Obama in 2008. Both times, they were registering protest votes against the party and its presumptive nominee. The Sanders movement convinced itself that his success reflected an unsated demand for socialism. The rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—young, nonwhite, native to social media—gave the movement the ideal image of its ambitions. Their plan to take over the party involved repeating that they had already done so.)

We have seen several iterations of this repetition right here on this board. Saying it doesn’t make it so, folks!
  #2  
Old 05-12-2019, 11:05 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYMAG
Their plan to take over the party involved repeating that they had already done so.
...this was the plan? Really? Cite?
  #3  
Old 05-12-2019, 11:35 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,799
Not “that was their plan” like “in the secret progressive HQ, this set of talking points was distributed” but snarky, like “what was your plan, exactly—just tell everyone you already did it, apparently”. People have said it to me over and over: here, on Twitter, and on Facebook. “You’re stuck in the ‘90s, the party has moved on, catch up or get out of the way.” That sort of thing.
  #4  
Old 05-12-2019, 11:44 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Not “that was their plan” like “in the secret progressive HQ, this set of talking points was distributed” but snarky, like “what was your plan, exactly—just tell everyone you already did it, apparently”. People have said it to me over and over: here, on Twitter, and on Facebook.
...perhaps people are "saying things to you over and over on twitter" but I would suggest the problem is that "you aren't listening." This isn't the plan. It was never the plan. Not even in a "snarky-kind-of-way."

Quote:
“You’re stuck in the ‘90s, the party has moved on, catch up or get out of the way.” That sort of thing.
Can you provide a cite for anyone saying this to you on your twitter account? Or anything close to "that sort of thing?"

Are you sure the message isn't “You’re stuck in the ‘90s, the party needs to move on, catch up or get out of the way?" Because that's a completely different message.
  #5  
Old 05-13-2019, 12:56 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,913
Yeah progressives have deluded themselves about how much support they have among among Democratic voters let alone the wider electorate.

The problem is that that the leftmost 30% or so of the party has indeed moved sharply to the left over the last decade and much of the left commentariat has moved with them. This segment of the party has a disproportionate influence in setting the agenda of the party and shaping its wider public image. And on issues like reparations, immigration and abolishing private insurance it's pushing the party in a direction increasingly at odds with the broader electorate which creates a serious danger for Democrats.

Even if progressives don't get their candidate they may push the eventual candidate into adopting unpopular positions. Alternatively, if the candidate resists them, progressives may just stay home and throw the election to the Republicans.

The bottom line is that Democrats are much more ideologically divided than they were a decade ago and that is not a good thing for them.
  #6  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:27 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
Yeah progressives have deluded themselves about how much support they have among among Democratic voters let alone the wider electorate.

The problem is that that the leftmost 30% or so of the party has indeed moved sharply to the left over the last decade and much of the left commentariat has moved with them.

Precisely.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #7  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:43 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Precisely.
...which progressives have "have deluded themselves about how much support they have among among Democratic voters?" Can you give some examples of this delusion?

If 30% of the party have "shifted to the left" what is it you are expecting them to do? You want them to not advocate for positions they believe in?

The New York Mag article talks about "ideological labels". But "labels" are different from "positions." This poll suggests 70% of people are in favour of "Medicare for all". Polls suggest that many parts of the New Green Deal are very popular.

So is the message behind your OP is that we should reject "labels" and focus on policy?

Because I'd be good with that.
  #8  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:48 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,122
[off-topic?] Contrary to the line most of the elite has pushed, globalization leads to a downward pressure on U.S. wages — this is a major reason that American workers haven't benefited from the booms as much as the rich have. Americans sense that and vote for a Perot or Trump who "gets it."

I don't think protectionism is the answer, but the Ds have to develop some message to attract the economic populists who support Trump.

Jobs, jobs, jobs! is the important "progressive" message voters want to hear. Trump is winning that issue (though by lying) and this is where the D's, both moderate and progressive, need to focus.

Last edited by septimus; 05-13-2019 at 01:49 AM.
  #9  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:10 AM
Anny Middon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Jobs, jobs, jobs! is the important "progressive" message voters want to hear. Trump is winning that issue (though by lying) and this is where the D's, both moderate and progressive, need to focus.
With unemployment at a low, I don't think the focus is still on jobs. I think the focus should be on growth in real wages, an area in which Trump's performance has been at best lackluster.

A political ad I'd like to see (but I'm sure I won't):

A date 25 years or so in the future flashes on the screen. Begin with a montage of all the horror that climate change has caused. A little girl, who would be adorable if she wasn't painfully skinny, says: "Grandpa, how come everything got to be so bad?"

Grandfather replies, "Well, honey, your grandma and I got better jobs. For some reason, that's all we cared about."
  #10  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:54 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
With unemployment at a low, I don't think the focus is still on jobs. I think the focus should be on growth in real wages, an area in which Trump's performance has been at best lackluster.

A political ad I'd like to see (but I'm sure I won't):

A date 25 years or so in the future flashes on the screen. Begin with a montage of all the horror that climate change has caused. A little girl, who would be adorable if she wasn't painfully skinny, says: "Grandpa, how come everything got to be so bad?"

Grandfather replies, "Well, honey, your grandma and I got better jobs. For some reason, that's all we cared about."
Unemployment is low but the jobs are not better. There is worse wealth inequality and those not on the very top side of that have good reason to feel insecure.

I think certain groups tend to over-estimate their numbers because the view they see (active in the social media they frequent) are people who share their perspectives. That said many of the mainstream ideas promoted by Democrats were considered "progressive" not too many years ago and the most mainstream Democrats and the most progressive both are wanting to pull in the same (progressive) direction, one opposite than the one Trump and the GOP is pushing. Pragmatic or revolutionary is an issue of tactics and well marketing more than anything else.
  #11  
Old 05-13-2019, 03:53 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
There's always been a lot of hope that progressives could leverage a major party into getting their agenda passed, but libertarians have also lived under that delusion. Progressives have their party: it's called the Green Party, or another, the DSA. The Democratic Party is a center-left party and that's not likely to change anytime soon. Why the media focuses on the few progressives that just got elected rather than the 50 moderates is hopefulness triumphing over reality. AOC doesn't matter. Seth Moulton matters. Stephanie Murphy matters.
  #12  
Old 05-13-2019, 04:50 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
There's always been a lot of hope that progressives could leverage a major party into getting their agenda passed, but libertarians have also lived under that delusion. Progressives have their party: it's called the Green Party, or another, the DSA. The Democratic Party is a center-left party and that's not likely to change anytime soon. Why the media focuses on the few progressives that just got elected rather than the 50 moderates is hopefulness triumphing over reality. AOC doesn't matter. Seth Moulton matters. Stephanie Murphy matters.
...who the fuck is Seth Moulton? Who on earth is Stephanie Murphy? If they "matter" so much how come I haven't heard of them? This graph says it all. AOC has more interactions on twitter than anyone else in the Democratic party. More than Obama. More than CNN. She is the only person who comes close to Donald Trump in reach. They focus on people like AOC because people are interested in what she has to say. Welcome to the 21st Century. Like it or not this matters.

And like it or not America is effectively a "two party system" and if you want to have a hope-in-hell of getting your agenda passed you need to do that under the banner of either the Dems or the Republicans. I don't hear you complaining that the "Freedom Caucus" have a voice in the Republican Party and that they have power. That's just how the system works.
  #13  
Old 05-13-2019, 04:58 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,503
trumpists are a majority within a party that manages, sometimes even without a plurality of votes, to win elections. But they themselves are only, maybe, 35 to 40 percent of the total population. As a democrat, I'm not sure I'd want us to mirror that scenario. (Except for the winning elections part.)
  #14  
Old 05-13-2019, 05:02 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I don't think protectionism is the answer, but the Ds have to develop some message to attract the economic populists who support Trump.
No, they don't. I'm not saying economic populism is bad. A lot of the appeal of AOC & Bernie Sanders is their strong populism. But 'the economic populists who support Trump' are not on the table, because they already have a man in the White House. You can't offer to give them power they already have.

You can appeal to the economic populists who support Bernie Sanders; you know, young millennial social democrats, or 'progressives.'

Last edited by foolsguinea; 05-13-2019 at 05:03 PM.
  #15  
Old 05-13-2019, 05:11 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
But they themselves are only, maybe, 35 to 40 percent of the total population.
...if we accept the statistics in the article in the OP that "29 percent said socialism is compatible with American values" and if you also accept my cite that said "70% of Americans want medicare for all" I think it would be fair to say that many Americans reject the label of "socialism" but would actually embrace "socialism" as long as you don't call it that. Like how they hated Obamacare but loved the ACA. So I don't see it as "mirroring the Trumpism scenario" at all.
  #16  
Old 05-13-2019, 05:53 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...who the fuck is Seth Moulton? Who on earth is Stephanie Murphy? If they "matter" so much how come I haven't heard of them? This graph says it all. AOC has more interactions on twitter than anyone else in the Democratic party. More than Obama. More than CNN. She is the only person who comes close to Donald Trump in reach. They focus on people like AOC because people are interested in what she has to say. Welcome to the 21st Century. Like it or not this matters.
Moulton and Murphy have more power within the caucus and will get much more legislation passed.

Quote:
And like it or not America is effectively a "two party system" and if you want to have a hope-in-hell of getting your agenda passed you need to do that under the banner of either the Dems or the Republicans. I don't hear you complaining that the "Freedom Caucus" have a voice in the Republican Party and that they have power. That's just how the system works.
The Freedom Caucus has about as much power as their numbers justify. As does the Progressive Caucus. And the DSAers haven't even come close to even the Tea Party's success. All they did was primary some fellow Democrats in blue states and districts. The Tea Party actually won Senate seats in purple states, defeating incumbent Democrats. AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley haven't defeated a single Republican incumbent and never will. Meanwhile, Tea Partiers knocked off Russ Feingold. When a progressive candidate takes out Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton I'll start to be impressed. Heck, beat Cory Gardner without having to use a moderate. I dare you.
  #17  
Old 05-13-2019, 06:03 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Moulton and Murphy have more power within the caucus and will get much more legislation passed.
...still haven't heard of them. Who the fuck are they again?

Quote:
The Freedom Caucus has about as much power as their numbers justify.
The Freedom Caucus have power disproportionate to their numbers.

Quote:
As does the Progressive Caucus. And the DSAers haven't even come close to even the Tea Party's success. All they did was primary some fellow Democrats in blue states and districts. The Tea Party actually won Senate seats in purple states, defeating incumbent Democrats. AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley haven't defeated a single Republican incumbent and never will. Meanwhile, Tea Partiers knocked off Russ Feingold.
So you agree the Progressive Caucus can happily coexist within the Dems and don't need to quit and join the Greens? Okay then.


Quote:
When a progressive candidate takes out Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton I'll start to be impressed. Heck, beat Cory Gardner without having to use a moderate. I dare you.
You dare me? What the fuck are you daring me to do? I'm not an American citizen. I can't run against Ted Cruz. The center can't beat Ted Cruz. I'm not sure what your point is.

And you've shifted the goalposts. We've gone from "the Progressives should leave" to "they can't beat Ted Cruz I dare you" what-ever-the-fuck you mean by that.
  #18  
Old 05-13-2019, 06:05 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
No, I've just noted that progressives are a minority within the Democratic Party and do not get to call the shots. Nor are they being allowed to. You haven't heard of Moulton and Murphy because they write legislation rather than appear on the cover of Rolling Stone.
  #19  
Old 05-13-2019, 06:13 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
No, I've just noted that progressives are a minority within the Democratic Party and do not get to call the shots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
There's always been a lot of hope that progressives could leverage a major party into getting their agenda passed, but libertarians have also lived under that delusion. Progressives have their party: it's called the Green Party, or another, the DSA. The Democratic Party is a center-left party and that's not likely to change anytime soon. Why the media focuses on the few progressives that just got elected rather than the 50 moderates is hopefulness triumphing over reality. AOC doesn't matter. Seth Moulton matters. Stephanie Murphy matters.
...you did a bit more than just note that "progressives are a minority within the Democratic Party and do not get to call the shots."

Quote:
Nor are they being allowed to.
When some polls suggest that 70% of the American people support Medicare for all then perhaps the Dems should "allow them" to do a bit more than they are.

Quote:
You haven't heard of Moulton and Murphy because they write legislation rather than appear on the cover of Rolling Stone.
I haven't heard of them because they have insignificant social media reach in comparison to someone like AOC. AOC didn't appear on the cover of Rolling Stone by accident. She knows how to leverage social media to forward her agenda. That's how things work now.
  #20  
Old 05-13-2019, 06:19 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
She knows how to leverage social media to forward her brand. On policy, her accomplishments are zilch and that's not likely to change. As for Medicare For All, Americans love it on two conditions: 1) they get to keep their current insurance, and 2) they don't have to pay for it. Polling on its actual cost and impact on current health insurance arrangements drops support to much lower levels:

https://apnews.com/4516833e7fb644c9aa8bcc11048b2169

Almost all of the support for health care reform involves some additions to ACA, not scrapping it in favor of something else entirely. Along with scrapping Medicare as well. You all may call it Medicare, but M4A is MEDICAID, not Medicare.
  #21  
Old 05-13-2019, 06:30 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
She knows how to leverage social media to forward her brand.
...one person's "brand" is another person's "progressive agenda." Its all about the narrative and its clear what narrative you are pushing.

Quote:
On policy, her accomplishments are zilch and that's not likely to change.
Keep shifting those goalposts. What are the typical policy accomplishments of other newcomers to the House who have been in office for less than six months? What is your basis for comparison?

Quote:
As for Medicare For All, Americans love it on two conditions: 1) they get to keep their current insurance, and 2) they don't have to pay for it. Polling on its actual cost and impact on current health insurance arrangements drops support to much lower levels:

https://apnews.com/4516833e7fb644c9aa8bcc11048b2169

Almost all of the support for health care reform involves some additions to ACA, not scrapping it in favor of something else entirely. Along with scrapping Medicare as well. You all may call it Medicare, but M4A is MEDICAID, not Medicare.
Excuse me for not keeping up with the vagaries of the stupid nature of the appalling US Healthcare system. But you don't seem to be disagreeing with anything I've said.
  #22  
Old 05-13-2019, 06:36 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,695
51% of democrats identify as liberal.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...fy-as-liberal/

Granted they'll never take over the party because they don't have the financial backing of the moderates in the party. But liberals are the majority of democrats now.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #23  
Old 05-13-2019, 06:42 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
No, I've just noted that progressives are a minority within the Democratic Party and do not get to call the shots. Nor are they being allowed to. You haven't heard of Moulton and Murphy because they write legislation rather than appear on the cover of Rolling Stone.
Why is Seth Moulton a moderate? He supports marijuana legalization, abortion, gun control, gay rights, the green new deal.

He doesn't support medicare for all, but he does support universal health care and a public option.

He may not call himself liberal but he is pretty liberal on the issues.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #24  
Old 05-13-2019, 06:45 PM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 320
The DP has moved to the right... Support for wars, wall street, conservative trade deals like NAFTA, gutting social welfare, doing NOTHING for the working-class.
  #25  
Old 05-13-2019, 06:46 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...which progressives have "have deluded themselves about how much support they have among among Democratic voters?" Can you give some examples of this delusion?

Wait for it...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
This poll suggests 70% of people are in favour of "Medicare for all".

Boom! There's your example. This is just the kind of self-delusion I'm talking about, cherrypicking polls with vague wording to convince progressives that the vast majority of the public is actually on their side. (As a corollary, this spins out into conspiracy theories for why this broad majority doesn't translate into Congress and the presidency.)

From the same publication as your cite:

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...healthcare-for
Quote:
A new poll finds that about only one in 10 registered voters want the equivalent of Medicare for all if it means abolishing private health insurance plans.

Which is why I have so much respect for Nancy Pelosi:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...st-pelosi.html
Quote:
Many progressives think the best way to attract and mobilize voters is to push big ideas like “Medicare for All” and the Green New Deal. Pelosi disagrees. Big ideas often alarm the other side’s voters more than they inspire yours. Instead, she focuses on specific policies that affect people’s lives. She knows such policies are easier to explain and harder to caricature. And she emphasizes tangible benefits. “The climate issue is a jobs issue,” she says.

The smarter play, in Pelosi’s view, is to defend policies that are well understood and supported. Let your enemy be the aggressor, and rally your base against his attack. Instead of pushing Medicare for All, the speaker targets President Donald Trump’s assault on the Affordable Care Act. She specifies elements of the ACA that score well in polls: “protections against pre-existing conditions, bans on lifetime limits and annual limits, the Medicare-Medicaid expansion, savings for seniors on their prescription drugs, [and] premium assistance that makes health coverage affordable.”[...]

Some critics see Pelosi’s centrist language as weak and uninspiring. But she cares about policies, not ideologies, so she’s ruthless about embracing or shedding labels. She believes, for instance, that fairness is a more popular and less incendiary term than socialism. At a press conference last month, a reporter asked her about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s pledge to make 2020 a referendum on socialism. Pelosi replied that McConnell had engineered tax cuts for the rich, and she asked what he was doing to help ordinary people. At Cornell, Pelosi accused Republicans of using the word socialism to hide their attacks on popular programs. “They’re saying that Medicare and Medicaid and raising the minimum wage are acts of socialism,” the speaker scoffed. “No, they’re not. They’re about fairness.”

A party can win more votes, in Pelosi’s view, by claiming to represent the middle than by claiming to represent a wing or a movement. “The Republicans have abandoned the center. The left can own it,” she argued on Tuesday. “Redefine what the center is, and don’t let them define our agenda as something that is far left.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
AOC has more interactions on twitter than anyone else in the Democratic party. More than Obama. More than CNN.

Time for another reality check. Again: being popular on social media is not the same as being popular among the broad populace.


https://poll.qu.edu/national/release...ReleaseID=2611
Quote:
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York gets a negative 23 - 36 percent favorability rating, with 38 percent who haven't heard enough about her to form an opinion. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has been good for the Democratic Party, 33 percent of voters say, as 36 percent say she's been bad for the party.

"All is definitely not A-OK for AOC. Most voters either don't like the firebrand freshman Congresswoman or don't know who she is," Malloy said.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-13-2019 at 06:49 PM.
  #26  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:02 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
51% of democrats identify as liberal.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...fy-as-liberal/

Granted they'll never take over the party because they don't have the financial backing of the moderates in the party. But liberals are the majority of democrats now.

There it is, the conspiratorial thinking I referred to just upthread. Couldn't possibly be that the party's makeup actually represents the wishes of its grassroots members.

So how do you explain the following?

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...oderate-party/
Quote:
Gallup recently asked Democrats and Dem-leaning independents this question:

“If you had to choose, would rather see the Democratic Party become more liberal or become more moderate?”

And they asked Republicans and Repub-leaning independents:

“If you had to choose, would rather see the Republican Party become more conservative or become more moderate?”[...]

Gallup found that by a fairly solid-looking 54-41 percent (with five percent expressing no opinion) of Democrats would prefer that their party move toward the middle.

But among Republicans and Repub-leaners, by an even wider 57-37 percent margin, want their party to move further to the right.

Why do you go by "Wesley Clark", anyway? He was like the iconic avatar for the hopes and dreams of moderate/pragmatic Dems.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #27  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:20 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Wait for it...

Boom! There's your example. This is just the kind of self-delusion I'm talking about, cherrypicking polls with vague wording to convince progressives that the vast majority of the public is actually on their side.
...Boom!

You are wrong. I used the word "suggests" for a reason. I used the word "suggests" because I concede that I've cherrypicked that particular poll. Exactly the same way Jonathan Chait cherrypicked the polls that he used to frame the editorial that he wrote. I picked that example as a direct counter to the narrative that you and Chait are pushing: that "cherrypicking polls with vague wording" is evidence that "progressives have NOT taken over the Democratic Party."

This isn't "self-delusion." My argument was about the difference between "labels" and "positions." When you remove that sentence from the context it was made you are deliberately mischaracterizing my argument. Stop doing that.

Quote:
(As a corollary, this spins out into conspiracy theories for why this broad majority doesn't translate into Congress and the presidency.)
Not it doesn't. The "popular vote" doesn't matter.

Quote:
From the same publication as your cite:

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...healthcare-for
I'm well aware of what the article says.

Quote:
Which is why I have so much respect for Nancy Pelosi:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...st-pelosi.html
If Nancy Pelosi leads the Democrats to defeat in 2020 will you still have respect for what she says?

Quote:
Time for another reality check. Again: being popular on social media is not the same as being popular among the broad populace.


https://poll.qu.edu/national/release...ReleaseID=2611
What a strange poll. 23 questions. Two of those questions about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. No other person gets their own question. From that poll: what is your standard for comparison? Is she more or less favourable than Joe Biden, or Hickenlooper? The mere fact she gets her own questions says a lot about her visibility.

But regardless: time for another reality check. The President is arguably massively less favorable than AOC will ever be. But there is a very good chance he will be re-elected in 2020. I know you think you know how this all works. But in reality everything is in flux. The rules of the game are constantly changing. The people behind Donald Trump are at the absolute "top of the game" at both understanding and being able to micro-target the people that matter in the elections. Nobody on the Dems side is remotely close to the "popularity" of the President on social media. You might dismiss it: but it is really fucking important. Ignore it and you ignore everything that happened in 2016.
  #28  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:29 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,799
Says the guy who lives on the other side of the planet and is only too happy to throw that fact around when it suits him ("Excuse me for not keeping up with the vagaries of the stupid nature of the appalling US Healthcare system").
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #29  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:32 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Says the guy who lives on the other side of the planet and is only too happy to throw that fact around when it suits him
...WORST. REBUTTAL. EVER.

Quote:
("Excuse me for not keeping up with the vagaries of the stupid nature of the appalling US Healthcare system").
Thanks for your understanding.
  #30  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:34 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,799
So we should take seriously your opinion about which American politicians support MFA vs. some other form of universal health care, even after your assertion of ignorance about our system's "vagaries"?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #31  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:42 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So we should take seriously your opinion about which American politicians support MFA vs. some other form of universal health care, even after your assertion of ignorance about our system's "vagaries"?
...you can do whatever the fuck you like. You've made it crystal clear you are never going to take anything I say seriously anyway.

You can choose to address my post or you can ignore it because I typed something while I was lying down in bed typing on my laptop and my brain wasn't properly engaged. You are using MFA as a shield. You are welcome to do so. It won't hide the fact that you misrepresented my arguments and it doesn't hide the fact that the OP is built on cherry-picked statistics. It doesn't hide the fact that what this thread is really all about is what some random person may or may not have said to you on twitter.

Last edited by Banquet Bear; 05-13-2019 at 07:43 PM.
  #32  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:52 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,799
Whistle past the graveyard all you like. But Josh Marshall, the grise eminence of the left-blogosphere, sees it too:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...ort-is-growing
Quote:
The more activist conversation that dominates Twitter seems to be operating in a different world from the actual Democratic electorate.

FWIW, I take you seriously when you say things that deserve to be taken seriously. (And you do frequently say such things, despite your hyperbolic claim that I don't ever take you seriously.)
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #33  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:06 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Whistle past the graveyard all you like. But Josh Marshall, the grise eminence of the left-blogosphere, sees it too:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...ort-is-growing
...who the fuck is Josh Marshall, and who appointed him grise eminence of the left-blogosphere?

Quote:
FWIW, I take you seriously when you say things that deserve to be taken seriously. (And you do frequently say such things, despite your hyperbolic claim that I don't ever take you seriously.)
You dismissed the entirety of my post based on something I said to somebody else because I used a word that didn't materially change the substance of my argument. One could argue based on that not that we shouldn't take me seriously, but we shouldn't take you seriously.

But I do take you seriously. Deadly seriously. Because the world has changed. And everything is about the narrative. And framing is important. And what Chait did was take a set of facts and he spun those facts to create a narrative, and what you've done is take his narrative and you've run with it. I don't think your narrative fits the facts. I've challenged you to provide proof of your narrative and the best that you can do is to spin the words that I've said.

Narratives matter. And if narratives don't fit the facts then it becomes important to challenge them.
  #34  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:23 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
There it is, the conspiratorial thinking I referred to just upthread. Couldn't possibly be that the party's makeup actually represents the wishes of its grassroots members.

So how do you explain the following?

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...oderate-party/



Why do you go by "Wesley Clark", anyway? He was like the iconic avatar for the hopes and dreams of moderate/pragmatic Dems.
Conspiratorial? Posting an article you disagree with is conspiratorial? The % of democrats who identify as liberal keeps growing.

In the 2016 primary, there was a huge difference in how democrats over 40 vs under 40 voted in the primary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.947ffa9145a7

Quote:
A Pew Research poll in early 2018 found that 46 percent of Democrats identified themselves as liberal, up from 28 percent a decade earlier. The percentages calling themselves moderate or conservative each slumped by high single digits.
Give it time. I predict the democratic party will keep moving to the left due to domestic problems (brutal and unaffordable health care, income inequality, lack of job security, open war on women and minorities, etc) combined with demographic changes. For a lot of younger people 'conservative' means white nationalism, neofascism and plutocracy.

https://datatrekresearch.com/gallup-...e-moving-left/
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-13-2019 at 08:27 PM.
  #35  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:44 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
No, I've just noted that progressives are a minority within the Democratic Party and do not get to call the shots. Nor are they being allowed to. You haven't heard of Moulton and Murphy because they write legislation rather than appear on the cover of Rolling Stone.
And, in that argument, you are missing something very important. The people get their agenda out to the people and get the most support are eventually the ones who will have power. If you're someone we've never heard of, with positions that don't align with the public face of your party, then that is not good.

The idea that progressives need to be a majority in the party is silly. They only need to convince the rest of the party that their ideals are aligned with theirs. And, if you look at what counts as "liberal" these days, it is clear that the moderate portion of the Democratic Party is becoming more progressive.

Democrats actually fought and achieved marriage equality. That was part of the progressive agenda. Democrats regularly fight for anti-discrimination laws against LGBT people. That's progressive. All of the current Democratic candidates for President are discussing progressive ideas.

You make the mistake of assuming that people's stances are fixed. You assume there are "progressives" and "moderates," and that one cannot influence the other. But they very much can.

What you have to compare are ideas, not people in determining who has "control" of the party.
  #36  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:56 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,074
That said, the OP is correct in his title. The progressives have not taken over. That creates an image of some sort of coup. It misses the leftist ideal of being able to convince people rather than having to conquer them.

What has happened is that more progressive causes have become mainstream--including those that actually deal with the economic hardships people face. The Democratic Party realizes they dropped the ball on those issues last time.

The main thing is making sure the message does not forget about the working class. And I say just "the working class," because there is no reason they should be separated by race. Despite Trump's bluster, only the Dems have actually done anything to help the working (hu)man.
  #37  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:57 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
And, in that argument, you are missing something very important. The people get their agenda out to the people and get the most support are eventually the ones who will have power. If you're someone we've never heard of, with positions that don't align with the public face of your party, then that is not good.

The idea that progressives need to be a majority in the party is silly. They only need to convince the rest of the party that their ideals are aligned with theirs. And, if you look at what counts as "liberal" these days, it is clear that the moderate portion of the Democratic Party is becoming more progressive.

Democrats actually fought and achieved marriage equality. That was part of the progressive agenda. Democrats regularly fight for anti-discrimination laws against LGBT people. That's progressive. All of the current Democratic candidates for President are discussing progressive ideas.

You make the mistake of assuming that people's stances are fixed. You assume there are "progressives" and "moderates," and that one cannot influence the other. But they very much can.

What you have to compare are ideas, not people in determining who has "control" of the party.
Which begs the question again, what is a moderate democrat and what is a liberal democrat?

As Adaher mentioned earlier, he feels Seth Moulton is a moderate. But Moulton supports marijuana legalization, abortion, gun control, gay rights, the green new deal, universal health care, a public option. He even supports abolishing the electoral college and the filibuster. These are all liberal positions

Politicians have demonized the term liberal for decades, so yeah people will recoil from it. But what are the differences between moderate democrats and liberal democrats on the issues?

People may recoil from the term leftist or liberal due to the red scare or Gingrich's propaganda campaign. But ask them how they feel about renewable energy investment, marijuana legalization, gay rights, universal health care, etc. and a big chunk of democratic voters are liberal on the issues.

Reading this thread I'm getting the impression that 'newt gingrich and Rush limbaugh called liberals names, so democrats are afraid to be called liberal'. How does that in any way apply to how people feel on the actual issues? Just because a lot of democrats are afraid of being called names by republicans doesn't mean they reject liberal positions on issues like taxation, health care, social issues, etc. I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong if anyone wants to prove me wrong.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #38  
Old 05-13-2019, 09:05 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,695
Like on health care I guess you could make the argument that liberal democrats support medicare for all or VA for all while moderate democrats support expanding the ACA.

Maybe moderate democrats support higher taxes on the rich, but not as high as the liberal democrats want.

In the past, moderate democrats supported civil unions while liberal democrats supported gay marriage. At this point gay marriage is the mainstream democratic view though.

I suppose on ICE the liberal position is abolition while the moderate position is reform. Liberals probably support more gun control than moderates. Maybe liberals want a minimum wage of $15, while moderate democrats want a minimum wage of $10 or one that is indexed to COL by area. I don't know.

I think the big difference is that liberal democrats are much more hostile to corporate interests than moderate democrats, who try to balance the interests of corporations with the public.

Either way.

https://prospect.org/article/most-am...80%99t-know-it
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-13-2019 at 09:06 PM.
  #39  
Old 05-13-2019, 09:40 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Conspiratorial? Posting an article you disagree with is conspiratorial?



No, "Granted they'll never take over the party because they don't have the financial backing of the moderates in the party" is conspiratorial. Moneyed elites, thwarting the will of the true majority of the party.

Now, what about that screen name? I'm genuinely curious, as someone who was an early backer of the "Draft Clark" campaign.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...who the fuck is Josh Marshall, and who appointed him grise eminence of the left-blogosphere?

You make these aggressively dismissive comments celebrating your own ignorance, and then blame me when I hoist you by your own petard. Here's another opportunity to rinse/repeat, as I quote the intro to Josh Marshall's WIki entry (which I did not, FTR, edit):


Quote:
Joshua Micah Jesajan-Dorja Marshall (born February 15, 1969) is an American journalist and blogger[1] who founded Talking Points Memo,[2] which in 2004 The New York Times Magazine called "one of the most popular and most respected sites" in the blogosphere.[3] A liberal, he currently presides over a network of progressive-oriented sites that operate under the TPM Media banner and average 400,000-page views every weekday[4] and 750,000 unique visitors every month.[5][6]

Marshall and his work have been profiled by The New York Times,[5] the Los Angeles Times,[7] the Financial Times,[8] National Public Radio,[9] The New York Times Magazine,[10] the Columbia Journalism Review,[4] Bill Moyers Journal,[11] and GQ.[12][13] Hendrik Hertzberg, a senior editor at The New Yorker, compares Marshall to the influential founders of Time magazine. "Marshall is in the line of the great light-bulb-over-the-head editors. He’s like Briton Hadden or Henry Luce. He’s created something new."[4]

Now I guess you can say "Who the fuck is Bill Moyers? Who the fuck is Hendrik Hertzberg? Who the fuck is Henry Luce?" ...aaaand then I give up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Democrats actually fought and achieved marriage equality. That was part of the progressive agenda. Democrats regularly fight for anti-discrimination laws against LGBT people. That's progressive. All of the current Democratic candidates for President are discussing progressive ideas.

When I talk about the progressive wing of the party, I'm talking about economic progressives. And that's what the self-styled progressives I know mean by the term as well. In fact, they show open disdain for "lifestyle liberals" who are more concerned with what Ralph Nader called "gonadal politics".
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #40  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:16 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
:
You make these aggressively dismissive comments celebrating your own ignorance, and then blame me when I hoist you by your own petard. Here's another opportunity to rinse/repeat, as I quote the intro to Josh Marshall's WIki entry (which I did not, FTR, edit)
...LOL. I can google him just fine. Time Magazine said in 2004 that TPM was "one of the most popular and most respected sites"? That was 15 years ago. Thats 15,000 years in Trump time. The blogosphere is a very different thing now than it was then.

How is it do you think you've "hoisted me up by my own petard?" I've heard of Talking Points Memo. I don't tend to visit it often. The Time quote talks about TPM: it doesn't talk about Josh Marshall. Time Magazine didn't appoint him grise eminence of the left-blogosphere. Apparently you did. Thanks for clearing that up.

Why the fuck do you think it ignorant not to have heard of just another voice on the internet? And why the fuck should I care what he thinks? We are in Great Debates and you've expressed an opinion and I'm talking to you. I'm not talking to Josh. Josh is just as concerned as you are about framing and setting the narrative about Joe Biden "correctly." He wrote a pretty pedestrian analysis of Biden's polling numbers that hit all the right talking points. Why should I care?

Quote:
Now I guess you can say "Who the fuck is Bill Moyers? Who the fuck is Hendrik Hertzberg? Who the fuck is Henry Luce?" ...aaaand then I give up.
Do you know what Jonathan Chait, Josh Marshall, Bill Moyers, Hendrik Hertberg and Henry Luce have in common? (Besides the fact that I don't know who the fuck any of them are)

And you are still avoiding addressing everything I said in the previous post. That's how you operate. Set the narrative, pivot when challenged. You've acknowledged in the past that this is a tactic that you use in debate. You can't show that the alleged plan of the progressives to take over the party was simply repeating that they had already done so. Because it wasn't. Everything else you are doing in this thread is a distraction from the fact that your OP has exactly zero substance. The debate is over. You've bought nothing to the table.
  #41  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:29 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Do you know what Jonathan Chait, Josh Marshall, Bill Moyers, Hendrik Hertberg and Henry Luce have in common? (Besides the fact that I don't know who the fuck any of them are)

There you go again. Do you think it adds to your credibility to express ignorance about such luminaries? (It does not.)

And you seem to have ignored my very first response to you in this thread, in which I tried to explain that "plan" is used in an idiomatic way that you seem determined to misunderstand. I expect most people reading this do understand the idiom, and are annoyed that we are wasting their time even discussing it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
We are in Great Debates

Your perspicacity is truly astounding. (No, we are in fact not in GD.)
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-13-2019 at 10:31 PM.
  #42  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:48 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
There you go again. Do you think it adds to your credibility to express ignorance about such luminaries? (It does not.)
...I'll let people judge my credibility based on my posts, and I'll let people judge your credibility on the basis of your posts. I'm sure from the lens of privileged white American men these are important voices in 2019. But there are plenty of other voices that you can listen to now if you choose too. The world isn't the same as it was 20 years ago. The gatekeepers to opinions have gone.

Quote:
And you seem to have ignored my very first response to you in this thread, in which I tried to explain that "plan" is used in an idiomatic way that you seem determined to misunderstand. I expect most people reading this do understand the idiom, and are annoyed that we are wasting their time even discussing it.
I didn't ignore it. I addressed it. People said stuff to you on Facebook and Twitter. Got it. You won't tell us exactly what they said. Got it.

We are not wasting our time "discussing it." It is what this thread is all about. Its the words in the quote that you highlighted in your OP.
  #43  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:59 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,799
I started the thread, and IMO it is not "all about" a tendentious insistence on an overly literal parsing of the meaning of the word "plan".
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #44  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:41 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I started the thread, and IMO it is not "all about" a tendentious insistence on an overly literal parsing of the meaning of the word "plan".
...you do realize that if we stop being literal about the OP there is actually nothing left to debate? What do you think the OP is all about? What have I gotten wrong? What is it you would like do discuss?
  #45  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:56 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,799
Here’s another example of progressives combining the stubborn insistence that their wing is more popular than it is, with a conspiratorial mindset about the MSM:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._under_50.html

In the opening segment of the latest 538 podcast, they discussed this poll, TYT’s spin on its findings, and Sanders fans’ conspiratorial tendencies going back to 2016: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...eaching-trump/

I know many of you hate podcasts, so here’s a pull quote from Nate Silver: “First of all, the Young Turks are full of shit about this, and I hope people see that and are curious about why.” (The “why” is motivated reasoning.)
  #46  
Old 05-14-2019, 01:07 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Here’s another example of progressives combining the stubborn insistence that their wing is more popular than it is, with a conspiratorial mindset about the MSM:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._under_50.html

In the opening segment of the latest 538 podcast, they discussed this poll, TYT’s spin on its findings, and Sanders fans’ conspiratorial tendencies going back to 2016: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...eaching-trump/

I know many of you hate podcasts, so here’s a pull quote from Nate Silver: “First of all, the Young Turks are full of shit about this, and I hope people see that and are curious about why.” (The “why” is motivated reasoning.)
I started clicking your links, and after a few seconds was disappoined in TYT and the realclear link — I'd almost prefer podcasts over shows like TYT. TYT present a chart provided by the CNN poll, brag about how it's illegible when TYT's camera presents it, but tell us Biden's alleged spurt among the general populace is just because CNN sampled old people. True? Who knows! Who cares!! Everyone is entitled to their own facts today. I suppose I could have down a screen-grab on the illegible CNN chart, tried image enhancement software, to see if TYT was misleading me, but Nate Silver had done the work for me....

Forty-five minutes! Forty-five with an F. That's how long the Nate Silver podcast is. And it isn't even about the CNN poll or debunking TYT — that's presumably just a minute or three buried somewhere in the podcast. Is the TYT debunking at the 10-minute mark? The 22-minute mark? The 37-minute mark?? Nate Silver's profits aren't enough to prepare transcripts of his podcasts??? Who knows! Who cares!

I'll score this as TYT - Zero. Nate Silver - Zero. I'm even tempted to deduct five brownie points from Slacks who subjected me to this.

Last edited by septimus; 05-14-2019 at 01:12 AM.
  #47  
Old 05-14-2019, 01:25 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Here’s another example of progressives combining the stubborn insistence that their wing is more popular than it is, with a conspiratorial mindset about the MSM:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._under_50.html

In the opening segment of the latest 538 podcast, they discussed this poll, TYT’s spin on its findings, and Sanders fans’ conspiratorial tendencies going back to 2016: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...eaching-trump/

I know many of you hate podcasts, so here’s a pull quote from Nate Silver: “First of all, the Young Turks are full of shit about this, and I hope people see that and are curious about why.” (The “why” is motivated reasoning.)
...who is it, do you think, the Young Turks speak for? I'm progressive but I can't stand Bernie. I'm progressive but I've watched the Young Turks exactly once and I'll never watch them again. You can be progressive and actively oppose Bernie. You can be progressive and support AOC but not support Bernie. The real progressive candidate is Elizabeth Warren. Bernie doesn't listen to black people. Warren does. And her policies reflect that.

So I'm looking at your cite and thinking how does that relate to your OP? I've read your (first) cite and I think they are wrong: but so what? If Nate Silver says their analysis is full of shit then I'll accept its full of shit. Somebody said something wrong on the internet. Whats that got to do with the Democratic Party and your contention that "Progressives have NOT taken over the Democratic Party?"

What is it you are trying to say? Can you tie this into what you said in the OP?
  #48  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:32 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
That said, the OP is correct in his title. The progressives have not taken over. That creates an image of some sort of coup. It misses the leftist ideal of being able to convince people rather than having to conquer them.

What has happened is that more progressive causes have become mainstream--including those that actually deal with the economic hardships people face. The Democratic Party realizes they dropped the ball on those issues last time.

The main thing is making sure the message does not forget about the working class. And I say just "the working class," because there is no reason they should be separated by race. Despite Trump's bluster, only the Dems have actually done anything to help the working (hu)man.
The overton window seems to have moved to the left a bit. At least regarding things like health care (the public option is now the conservative option, while it was the liberal option a decade ago and single payer wasn't even discussed in public back then).

The issue with race and the working class is that sadly race is a factor. Whites w/o a college degree have been abandoning the democrats and becoming republican. However the issue isn't income, its education (538 controlled for income and found there was still a 30-40 point gap between high school vs college educated whites).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...trump-support/

But its not even education. Education is a proxy for authoritarianism and bigotry. Supposedly when you control for various forms of prejudice (nativism, racism, sexism, rejection of islam, etc) and also control for authoritarianism, the education gap pretty much disappears.

Obama did a lot for the white working class. The stimulus bill saved the economy. He saved the automotive industry, the ACA gave some of them health insurance. But it didn't seem to help him or the democrats.

Democrats need to find a way to appeal to whites w/o a college education, but I don't know how. Warren talking about a 'right to repair' law might be a good first step, but I really don't know. If the reason rural whites and whites w/o college have been abandoning the democrats is because they reject multiculturalism and the see the democrats as pro-multiculturalism and the GOP as anti-multiculturalism, I don't know if the democrats can win them back.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-14-2019 at 07:33 PM.
  #49  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:32 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,799
Septimus, I don't see how I could have been clearer than "opening segment". If it had been "buried" for a "minute or two" later in the episode, I would have provided a time to skip to. But in this case, you could have just clicked the link and it would have started playing, maybe after an ad reading or two.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #50  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:25 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 267
Progressives need to differentiate themselves from internet SJWs. That is, if there's a difference.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017