Support NeoGAF

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

My IRL friends are all Sanders' Stans and they were going on and on today about how Sanders would be able to get super progressive legislation passed even with a solid Red house.

They did not list any reasons why.

 

[brainchild]

When certain demographics vote or poll overwhelmingly a certain way it makes sense. When people say Bernie is the candidate of white males its well, pretty damn accurate demographically speaking. Minorities and women overwhelmingly pick Hillary in primary polling.

It's not about being disrespectful, it is just stating facts. It may be a sweeping generalization but you can't deny it is not an accurate generalization.

You can bring up the demographics within the context of polling. I have no problem with that. But don't sit here and tell me that Bernie's supporters are white males. As a Bernie supporter, you're basically telling me that I don't exist. It's unnecessary and insulting.

Within my sphere of influence, I know many Bernie supporters. Many of them minorities. Many of them probably haven't participated in a single poll. The fact of the matter is that you don't know how many minorities support Bernie, so you should stop acting like you do.

 

[Cerium]

Within my sphere of influence, I know many Bernie supporters. Many of them minorities. Many of them probably haven't participated in a single poll. The fact of the matter is that you don't know how many minorities support Bernie, so you should stop acting like you do.

That's not how statistics works. We know exactly what percent of minorities support Bernie.

 

[Cheebo]

Within my sphere of influence, I know many Bernie supporters. Many of them minorities. Many of them probably haven't participated in a single poll. The fact of the matter is that you don't know how many minorities support Bernie, so you should stop acting like you do.

This is nonsense. I know you are smarter than this sort of polling doubt, you aren't Daniel. Knowing people who haven't been in a poll doesn't change the accuracy of polling demographics at all. Bernie's supporters are overwhelmingly white. That is a fact. There is no way you can dispute this. The numbers and demographics are extremely consistent on this. We have had months and months of consistent numbers when it comes to the demographics here.

Saying "Bernie supporters are white" and "the overwhelmingly vast majority of Bernie supporters are white" means the same thing, this is just semantics.

 

[Iolo]

Forgot to say this earlier, but just wanted to let you guys know that I'm black, gay, 33 years old, and I'm voting for Bernie Sanders in the primaries.

Hold on. Weren't you the fellow arguing for a literacy test for voting? Just trying to square this away.

 

[brainchild]

That's not how statistics works.

I never claimed it was. The point is that polls are nowhere close to resembling the objective truth about reality. Sampling sizes are terrible and a significant portion of our country's citizens aren't politically engaged.

Purporting to know the minds of everyone in the country based on limited statistics is preposterous.

 

[Makai]

The overwhelming majority of Democrats are white. I agree that statistics are real (lol) but you guys are really overselling the disparity here. When I think overwhelming support I think 90% of black voters vote Democrat, etc. A 3 point gender disparity is not worth much. 20 point race disparity sure, but it's not "overwhelming."

 

[Brawndo Addict]

There's a difference between pointing out demographic gaps and claiming to know the reasons/motivations behind a demographic gap. There's speculation and then there's authorship.

 

[Cerium]

Purporting to know the minds of everyone in the country based on limited statistics is preposterous.

No it's not. That's what statistics are. You sound like Romney supporters on the eve of the 2012 elections.

 

[User 463088]

I never claimed it was. The point is that polls are nowhere close to resembling the objective truth about reality. Sampling sizes are terrible and a significant portion of our country's citizens aren't politically engaged.

Purporting to know the minds of everyone in the country based on limited statistics is preposterous.

But no one is doing that, though. Groups of supporters are always different. No one expects complete uniformity among a voting bloc.

 

[theprodigy]

When someone says no one wants a Vita, they don't literally mean there are zero people who want one.

Doesn't stop people from posting "that's not true, I want x!" in sales threads whenever someone says "nobody wants x anyway", which should be more detached than politics to begin with since we're talking about the whole market and not an individual!

 

[SL128]

Maybe it wasn't seen since I edited the previous post, but

As another way to say this for anyone unsure of what brainchild means [I think, anyway]: there's enough variation within groups that applying between-group information to individuals is not appropriate in most cases.

While describing the typical Bernie supporter as white is accurate, using that to assume someone's demographic can be perceived as insensitive depending on how it's done, and how often it's done. It would probably be accurate for me to say that most Hillary supporters barely know who Sanders is, but would be insensitive to imply that of ~50% of the people in this thread or her typical supporter.

 

[Black Mamba]

How close are you to raising the minimum wage at the federal level?
How likely are you to keep wages adjusted if you keep losing states to republicans?
How much did the other party suffer for all the bullshit they pulled with the fiscal cliff?

Closer to raising it today than 3 years ago. We'll get there. Also, some GOP states will be raising the minimum wage in the next 5 years, trust me.

And the last question is impossible to monitor as we don't have another set of data to which to compare. Maybe they did get hurt a bit, but how do we know? And it's not really relevant, the point is they lost and taxes on the wealthy were raised. Something that hadn't happened in nearly 20 years.

Yes, progress has been made, but the idea that progress has been made at the ideal speed, and if you just push a little more it'll all come crumbling down doesn't seem to be backed by anything.

A. Never argued it will come "crumbling down." In fact, it's always a long process that have major inflection points (ie VRA or Civil Rights Act or Obergefell or Lawrence v Texas or DADT).

B. The ideal speed of progress is a bad concept because ideally progress would never need to be made! Yes, I would like it to be faster, but just because it's not doesn't mean we should give up.

I am not defending that democrats run far left candidates. They wouldn't even know where to find one. I am, however, defending that candidates try to push the envelope far more than they currently do, and think very carefully before they concede any sort of ground as far as economic rhetoric is concerned.

Also that new democrats should get fucked.

But aside from that, and this is something i am genuinely asking you, is there good reason to believe that hills wont just be bill 2.0?

I'm all for being more outward to the left on certain issues. That's not what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against the idea that the national politics haven't moved left and that if the progress isn't fast enough then just let the GOP win cuz that'll be better long term.

As for Bill 2.0, that's still better than Reagan III. And even that is kind of wrong because the country is further left today than in 1992 when Bill took over. So even if Hillary is as far to the left of center to today's median as Bill was in 1992, it's progress. I'll take that over anything the GOP offers. I believe Hillary is more left than Bill, in general, though.

I don't see how the alternative of letting not-Hillary win from the GOP is better. Will this country be better off with Hillary over the next 8 years or Ruibio/Cruz/Trump/Carson?

Forgot to say this earlier, but just wanted to let you guys know that I'm black, gay, 33 years old, and I'm voting for Bernie Sanders in the primaries.

Yes, people like me exist, so please stop telling me that I'm a twenty-something white male who isn't going to bother to actually vote. Furthermore, you do not speak for all minorities, so don't presume to pigeon hole all of us into your contrived narrative. It's insulting.

It's always amusing to me when people think they're in a position to speak for minorities, despite not having a fucking clue as to how we live our lives and what factors influence the decisions that we make.

FWIW, I don't think there's anything wrong with someone voting for Bernie at all. I believe you should either vote who best represents you or weight electability and representation in some manner that makes you comfortable for your vote.

My only issue is with people, of any persuasion, who say if Bernie loses they hope the GOP wins. Because there is no fucking way a legit Bernie supporter is better represented by any Republican than Hillary and there is no way the country will move quicker towards their goal that way. It's a nonsense position. It's a childish one, too.

 

[Cheebo]

I never claimed it was. The point is that polls are nowhere close to resembling the objective truth about reality. Sampling sizes are terrible and a significant portion of our country's citizens aren't politically engaged.

Purporting to know the minds of everyone in the country based on limited statistics is preposterous.

It's not preposterous in the slightest, it is scientifically sound. Polling, especially polling averages a pretty near perfect way of knowing the reality of an electorate.

Sample sizes are not terrible, and not to mention we aren't talking about one off random polling here. We are talking about every single poll. Sample size ranges are non-existent when we are talking about about polling averages of all polling. That smooths out all potential outliers and gives a full rock-solid view of an electorate.

This is a very misinformed understanding of the accuracy of polls.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Not enough fire emojis in the world:

From the Mayor that brought you:

OANOKE -- Roanoke Mayor David Bowers is apologizing for comparing the closure of the Roanoke City Market building to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The market was closed two weeks ago after health inspectors found live mice, dead mice, mouse droppings and evidence of related food contamination. The Virginia Department of Health yanked all 10 vendors' licenses.

Bowers issued an apology yesterday after reading a quote of his remarks in The Roanoke Times. Bowers said he didn't mean to imply that the closure of the market building was in any way comparable to the loss of life in the terrorist attacks.

Bowers said the remarks were meant to imply that no matter the problem, "we need to try and rebuild confidence and have hope and try to demonstrate some success."

http://www.richmond.com/news/article_28551771-fdd4-5a67-93f1-a3a117e2c8b9.html

 

[Brawndo Addict]

A simple statistic that Politician X has Y% Support among Demographic Z doesn't tell you everything by itself. It doesn't give you reasons or explanations, it just is. Maybe they really hate the alternative and have no particular affinity for X, or maybe they only support X conditionally. Unless the statistics are specifically about the reasons why constituents of certain demographics choose particular candidates, you can only speculate one way or the other as to cause. Most polls are not the form of "Y% of Z think X will serve their needs better than X2", but we often extrapolate that to be their meaning.

That's not to say you can't make reasonably informed guesses, but polls don't speak for a group's reasoning unless it's a poll about their reasoning.

 

[brainchild]

This is nonsense. I know you are smarter than this sort of polling doubt, you aren't Daniel. Knowing people who haven't been in a poll doesn't change the accuracy of polling demographics at all. Bernie's supporters are overwhelmingly white. That is a fact. There is no way you can dispute this. The numbers and demographics are extremely consistent on this. We have had months and months of consistent numbers when it comes to the demographics here.

Saying "Bernie supporters are white" and "the overwhelmingly vast majority of Bernie supporters are white" means the same thing, this is just semantics.

You can claim it as fact when you've polled virtually every single Bernie supporter in the country.

Hold on. Weren't you the fellow arguing for a literacy test for voting? Just trying to square this away.

My statements were misconstrued, we won't be revisiting them either.

There's a difference between pointing out demographic gaps and claiming to know the reasons/motivations behind a demographic gap. There's speculation and then there's authorship.

This is true, and probably does a better job at explaining my issues with these generalizations than I did.

No it's not. That's what statistics are. You sound like Romney supporters on the eve of the 2012 elections.

Have you ever heard of an incomplete statistical model? Because that's what we have.

But no one is doing that, though. Groups of supporters are always different. No one expects complete uniformity among a voting bloc.

No, that's exactly what you're doing when my demographic goes unacknowledged when you talk about the people who support Bernie Sanders.

It's not preposterous in the slightest, it is scientifically sound. Polling, especially polling averages a pretty near perfect way of knowing the reality of an electorate.

Sample sizes are not terrible, and not to mention we aren't talking about one off random polling here. We are talking about every single poll. Sample size ranges are non-existent when we are talking about about polling averages of all polling. That smooths out all potential outliers and gives a full rock-solid view of an electorate.

This is full on denial and a very misinformed understanding of the accuracy of polls.

This is not about predicting the electorate. The statistics may very well be good enough for that. But it does not account for all of the people who don't vote, yet still have some kind of favorable or unfavorable view towards the candidates, but may not be motivated enough to vote.


But let's assume that we had perfect sampling/statistics. It would STILL be wrong to generalize people like this, because the implication is that people would be voting based on their demographic. There may be a correlation; a black person may very well be voting for Hillary Clinton, but it isn't necessarily because he or she is black. They may have other reasons for voting for her.

So, regardless of the likelihood of a demographic supporting a certain candidate, it's still not a good idea to make statements that imply that that is the reason why they're doing so. This is why the demographic analyses should stay confined to polling discussions, and not generalized discussions about candidates supporters.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Some thoughts on how the GOP's reaction to the Paris attacks differed from the Dems' response to the Madrid attacks in 2004.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/11/18/when-fox-news-didnt-blame-the-white-house-for-a/206934

MM is ridiculously left-leaning, but it might be mildly interesting to go back and compare.

 

[User1608]

Some thoughts on how the GOP's reaction to the Paris attacks differed from the Dems' response to the Madrid attacks in 2004.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/11/18/when-fox-news-didnt-blame-the-white-house-for-a/206934

MM is ridiculously left-leaning, but it might be mildly interesting to go back and compare.

You have to love how Obama is the divisive one and not the right wing media or their dull-minded viewers.

 

[dramatis]

IMO, it's slightly dehumanizing to say that someone is supporting something or someone because of their age, race, gender, or sexual orientation. We are individuals with our own minds and intelligence and can use reasoning independent of those biological/social characteristics.

And I don't really care that it's common for people to do it. I'm voicing my opinion and I do not appreciate the generalization. Simple as that.

I don't think it's dehumanizing. It's no less dehumanizing than categorizing people based on their particular sets of beliefs. If we say someone is pro-life because of his religion, is that dehumanizing them? No, it's making a logical reasoning due to knowledge of beliefs in the religion.

Which is exactly using our own minds and intelligence to interpret and understand available information.

And you certainly weren't using your rational mind when you were proclaiming Bernie to be a great debater and easy winner of the first debate before it happened, now were you?

Purporting to know the minds of everyone in the country based on limited statistics is preposterous.

Sure. But the statistics aren't limited, and the pollsters themselves don't purport to know the minds of everyone in the country, so the situation in reality is not preposterous. Your manufactured scenario is though.

Ironically, you are making your own broad sweeping generalizations when evaluating the analysis of polls done by the pollsters and the pundits.

 

[kess]

Some thoughts on how the GOP's reaction to the Paris attacks differed from the Dems' response to the Madrid attacks in 2004.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/11/18/when-fox-news-didnt-blame-the-white-house-for-a/206934

MM is ridiculously left-leaning, but it might be mildly interesting to go back and compare.

Aznar's Popular Party was leading in the polls by a good margin until his party insisted on making a connection to the Basque separatists well after evidence to the contrary surfaced. Krauthammer wrote an article at the time that accused the Spanish people as surrendering to terror, the reality was far more complex. I think there was especially a lot of saltiness about that election because Aznar was much closer to Bush than Blair ever was -- Aznar is currently a board member of News Corporation and a major climate change skeptic.

 

[brainchild]

I don't think it's dehumanizing. It's no less dehumanizing than categorizing people based on their particular sets of beliefs. If we say someone is pro-life because of his religion, is that dehumanizing them? No, it's making a logical reasoning due to knowledge of beliefs in the religion.

Which is exactly using our own minds and intelligence to interpret and understand available information.

And you certainly weren't using your rational mind when you were proclaiming Bernie to be a great debater and easy winner of the first debate before it happened, now were you?


Sure. But the statistics aren't limited, and the pollsters themselves don't purport to know the minds of everyone in the country, so the situation in reality is not preposterous. Your manufactured scenario is though.

Ironically, you are making your own broad sweeping generalizations when evaluating the analysis of polls done by the pollsters and the pundits.

Categorizing people's beliefs based on related beliefs is fine. Categorizing people's beliefs based on their biological make-up is not fine.

And I wasn't talking about conclusions drawn from pollsters. I'm talking about conclusions drawn from people in this thread.

Also, I don't know what you have against me, but you really need to chill out on the personal attacks. You never pass on an opportunity to dole out pot-shots. I don't get it. I certainly don't treat you that way, so I'd appreciate the same courtesy from you.

 

[Makai]

Campaign gold keeps flowing.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

JBE's (well "Democrats") stock dropped quite a bit on PredictIt. Something happen recently?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

JBE's (well "Democrats") stock dropped quite a bit on PredictIt. Something happen recently?

Paris attacks.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Edwards is anti-refugee which is unfortunate policy but probably enough to mitigate any upper hand Vitter might have gotten from this.

Whatever gets Obamacare done. Tracking poll still has him up 15.

 

[Retromelon]

You have to love how Obama is the divisive one and not the right wing media or their dull-minded viewers.

How divisive of you

 

[disastermouse]

Shhh, nobody's supposed to know that shaking up the parties doesn't randomly generate a completely new electorate.

Was the electorate of the 1920s composed of many of the same people as the electorate of the 1930s? I ask this because, well, they certainly changed the way they voted.

Would the electorate look different if there was powerful advocacy for left ideas? I think there would be.

 

[B-Dubs]

Was the electorate of the 1920s composed of many of the same people as the electorate of the 1930s? I ask this because, well, they certainly changed the way they voted.

Would the electorate look different if there was powerful advocacy for left ideas? I think there would be.

Are you serious with this? Do you not know what happened between those two dates?

 

[disastermouse]

It's honestly hard to see any difference between you and tea party Fox News loving Republicans based on your post history. You both want to see Democrats lose and Republicans control the government.

You plan to fuck over minorities just as much as they do based on how you plan to vote. Otherwise why vote to help Republicans in a swing state?

That has got to be hyperbole. There are a great many people on the left who want to see a strong left party and for people on the left to GTFO of the Democratic Party.

To equate that with being on the right is disingenuous and obviously not a legitimate argument. In 1980 the Democratic Party abandoned the left. It's time for the left to abandon the Democratic Party. This is not the same as joining the Republican Party. Over time, if enough people leave the party, maybe the left can build something that can be a real force for progress in America, because the Democratic Party has abdicated its role in progressive politics.

 

[disastermouse]

Are you serious with this? Do you not know what happened between those two dates?

Yes! That's what I'm saying. The person I quoted said that the electorate isn't left and that shaking up the parties will make no difference. My point is that circumstances dictate the political energy and force of the electorate.

 

[Makai]

That has got to be hyperbole. There are a great many people on the left who want to see a strong left party and for people on the left to GTFO of the Democratic Party.

To equate that with being on the right is disingenuous and obviously not a legitimate argument. In 1980 the Democratic Party abandoned the left. It's time for the left to abandon the Democratic Party. This is not the same as joining the Republican Party. Over time, if enough people leave the party, maybe the left can build something that can be a real force for progress in America, because the Democratic Party has abdicated its role in progressive politics.

Sorry, you live in a first-past-the-post country.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

We have a guy named Bush running for President unveiling his plans about massive force in Iraq and this person is worried about "sending a message" with their vote.

The myth of there being no difference between the parties could not be any more dead right now. You think President McCain would have shown this level of restraint in committing ground forces? I feel like I'm losing my fucking my mind right now that even with the obvious juxtaposition laid out right in front of you, Democrats (or Dem primary enthusiasts) are still more interested in the petty infighting.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Current Predictwise numbers for the Republican nominee.

Rubio: 47%
Trump: 21%
Cruz: 13%
Jeb: 9%
Carson: 6%
Christie: 3%
Kasich: 1%
Everyone else: 0%

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016RepNomination

40% odds that the Republicans will nominate Carson, Trump, or Cruz is just such a ridiculous idea to comprehend.

 

[disastermouse]

Sorry, you live in a first-past-the-post country.

Oh, it wouldn't start in presidential politics. It starts locally. It starts with stuff like Kshama Sawant in Seattle (except Socialist Alternative will self-destruct due to a slavish relationship to identity politics, IMHO). But it has to start and it won't ever start if the left stays with the Democratic Party.

You guys keep bellyaching about the next 4-8 years. I'm worried about the next 20 or 30 years if there isn't a legitimate left response to the problems we are going to confront in the first half of this century. The left has been bound and crippled by its involvement in the Democratic Party over the last 30 years. We can't afford another 30 years of this.

 

[Makai]

Ted Cruz on banning Muslim immigrants

"But but but but they're not but but but"

 

[danm999]

Sorry, you live in a first-past-the-post country.

It can be incredibly difficult even in countries with preferential voting. Even with the ability to avoid the spoiler effect people simply have trouble getting past the mindshare held by the bigger parties, and smaller parties are often forced to make preference deals with larger parties to even get a seat at the table for legislating.

 

[Black Mamba]

Oh, it wouldn't start in presidential politics. It starts locally. It starts with stuff like Kshama Sawant in Seattle (except Socialist Alternative will self-destruct due to a slavish relationship to identity politics, IMHO). But it has to start and it won't ever start if the left stays with the Democratic Party.

You guys keep bellyaching about the next 4-8 years. I'm worried about the next 20 or 30 years if there isn't a legitimate left response to the problems we are going to confront in the first half of this century. The left has been bound and crippled by its involvement in the Democratic Party over the last 30 years. We can't afford another 30 years of this.

If the left abandons the Democrat party, you're going to be stuck with a very conservative country for decades to come.

You're looking at this backwards, IMHO. This isn't Europe. Our electorate and our political process is very different. It intentionally hamstrings quick change. You have to build a coalition to get anything done. Take the route you describe and you'll destroy the left.

The far left and far right have the same problem, in this regard. They think they can go around the system. But you can't. it sucks, but that's the truth. Accept it and work with it.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Jeb has... things? to say:

 

[Black Mamba]

Jeb has... things? to say:

context?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

"Governor Bush, what do you think of free college", but I just thought it was funny phrasing, almost like a Dubya quote.

 

[Chichikov]

context?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/18/jeb-bush-brings-a-crab-to-a-frog-metaphor/

By the way, why do people post images of articles instead of excerpt in text form?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Laziness.

EDIT: Or because highlighting text on the NYTimes website is a pain. Or to have something to share to Twitter.

But probably laziness.

 

[User 406]

Are you serious with this? Do you not know what happened between those two dates?

Hey, he's got a point. If we suddenly utterly ruin hundreds of millions of lives, their personal politics will undergo extreme changes. And while it could go the way of fascism this time like it almost did before, maybe we'll get lucky and get another FDR! We'll never know unless we try!

context?

The context is that he's George W. Bush's brother.

I do appreciate the Jacuzzi imagery, it's almost like his subconscious is trying to warn him of the consequences of a continued increase in wealth inequality.

 

[Chichikov]

Laziness.

EDIT: Or because highlighting text on the NYTimes website is a pain. Or to have something to share to Twitter.

But probably laziness.

 

[Cerium]

This is news to me. Fantastic.

 

[Chichikov]

This is news to me. Fantastic.

Okay for real, get a quick javascript switcher extension for your favorite browser, you'll be amazed how many sites works sooooooooooooo much better with javascript disabled.

Edit: I'm using this one (for chrome), but there are many options out there.

 

[Makai]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/18/jeb-bush-brings-a-crab-to-a-frog-metaphor/

By the way, why do people post images of articles instead of excerpt in text form?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=186015605&postcount=25

 

[Cheebo]

Would the electorate look different if there was powerful advocacy for left ideas? I think there would be.

Isn't that exactly what your prefered candidate Bernie Sanders is doing? And guess what? He is losing. This destroys this theory of yours.

America isn't a hard left country. At all. If we want left leaning change we have to do it slowly and through whatever means we can. Like we have been doing this past 8 years.

If the country was waiting for a politician or party much farther to the left than the Democrats Bernie would be getting a lot more support than he is. Your theory is flawed and does not match the actual nation you live in.

That has got to be hyperbole. There are a great many people on the left who want to see a strong left party and for people on the left to GTFO of the Democratic Party.

Again this is playing out RIGHT NOW with Bernie vs Hillary, and Bernie is losing. This group of people you claim to exist and could make up a winning majority do not exist, if they did Bernie could win a Democratic Primary.

 

[User 406]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=186015605&postcount=25

Good catch, but I suspect his screengrab there is from an Amazon Look Inside thing, where there is no text to select.