Serious The Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
tbh the SC decision is so bad that it actually gives Biden some much needed ammunition to strike a new tone with voters on… wait
RaikouLover said:
In the last 70 years, every time the incumbent party did not have the incumbent President run for re-election, they lost the Presidential election. The most devastating example being LBJ—> Richard Nixon.
Click to expand...

Bruh “every time” was literally only twice, one was LBJ and the other was Harry Truman who was president when the 22nd amendment was ratified which technically prevented him from running again if not for the language that he was exempt from the amendment.

So yeah, every time in the past 70 years is twice.
 
BigFatMantis said:
Bruh “every time” was literally only twice, one was LBJ and the other was Harry Truman who was president when the 22nd amendment was ratified which technically prevented him from running again if not for the language that he was exempt from the amendment.

So yeah, every time in the past 70 years is twice.
Click to expand...

Yep. 0/2. Do what you will with that information.
 
~ theres nothing democratic about the party conventions and the pre-selection of candidates or in this case one single candidate bc there was no one else in the primary other than that dean phillips guy for 2 minutes (who has no substantive political differences from biden)
politicians know that they depend on being in the Party's good graces for their own reelections in the future. of course sometimes the party fucks them over anyway eg if it doesnt like their politics sending and aggressively campaigning for a challenger to unseat their own incumbent such as the westchester county seat discussed earlier. but the point is politicians know that there is a risk to entering the primary if the party doesnt want them to etc. it may not be the direct and obvious risk some republican politicians took challenging trump in their primary but an unmistakable risk nonetheless.
regardless of the question of hypothetically who ppl would or wouldnt vote for, the process of candidate selection is not remotely centered around 'the will of voters'.

~ yes political polls are notoriously unreliable its weird that the same ppl who were talking abt how unreliable polls are 10 pages ago are now presenting them as evidence and the ppl who insisted polls were amazingly accurate 10 pages ago now are pointing out how flawed they are.
'historical patterns' are prob slightly less useless but history isnt static and j bc xyz pattern held in a previous election doesnt mean it will in the next one. and certainly not comparing 'patterns' to elections from 50 or 70 years ago lmfao. using astrology to predict elections would be about as accurate (and much more entertaining) than such an arbitrary and mathematically meaningless "statistical" comparison

~ maybe the dem party chose to release internal polls bc they know theyre losing their base and think that releasing a poll along with all the newspaper speculation about alternative candidates will make ppl believe that they are seriously considering a new candidate, & that maybe if ppl believe the party "gave it serious consideration but made a tough decision to stick with biden" that will encourage voters to stick w the party. (this strategy would work just as well with releasing a fake poll than a "real" poll; but polls are so inaccurate that what difference does it really make tbqh.) who knows tho we have no access to the relevant information, "debating" whether its a "real" poll or not seems very silly to me, as has most of the discussion abt polls in this thread in general. political science has no more basis in reality than neoclassical economics, and its 'products' should be treated as such.

the dem party is gonna do what it wants to do. the newspaper speculation if anything j gives the party cover to go forward with biden and i would be v surprised by any change to the ticket, but regardless the decision is made by the party not by any of us and i dont get the orientation of speculation about whether a replacement candidate would do better. and if its abt 'putting pressure on the party' then hb pressure on actual substantive issues instead of talking abt replacing biden with another candidate who would be just as shitty when it comes to substantive politics
 
juoean said:
~ yes political polls are notoriously unreliable its weird that the same ppl who were talking abt how unreliable polls are 10 pages ago are now presenting them as evidence and the ppl who insisted polls were amazingly accurate 10 pages ago now are pointing out how flawed they are.
'historical patterns' are prob slightly less useless but history isnt static and j bc xyz pattern held in a previous election doesnt mean it will in the next one. and certainly not comparing 'patterns' to elections from 50 or 70 years ago lmfao. using astrology to predict elections would be about as accurate (and much more entertaining) than such an arbitrary and mathematically meaningless "statistical" comparison

~ maybe the dem party chose to release internal polls bc they know theyre losing their base and think that releasing a poll along with all the newspaper speculation about alternative candidates will make ppl believe that they are seriously considering a new candidate, & that maybe if ppl believe the party "gave it serious consideration but made a tough decision to stick with biden" that will encourage voters to stick w the party. (this strategy would work just as well with releasing a fake poll than a "real" poll; but polls are so inaccurate that what difference does it really make tbqh.) who knows tho we have no access to the relevant information, "debating" whether its a "real" poll or not seems very silly to me, as has most of the discussion abt polls in this thread in general. political science has no more basis in reality than neoclassical economics, and its 'products' should be treated as such.
Click to expand...

Well to be clear no one has been able to locate or post this “Democratic internal poll” that has Biden losing swing states by 10 and being competitive in blue states.

Also, the “historical voting patterns” are far more static than you have suggested here. The statement that Republicans have not received even 20% of the black vote since 1964 is an empirical fact. That is 60 years of actual elections. But what people are circulating this cycle is that convicted felon Trump is set to buck these demographic trend because poorly constructed polling sites are publishing such. (Hint: they have motive to get clicks!)
 
juoean said:
~ theres nothing democratic about the party conventions and the pre-selection of candidates or in this case one single candidate bc there was no one else in the primary other than that dean phillips guy for 2 minutes (who has no substantive political differences from biden)
politicians know that they depend on being in the Party's good graces for their own reelections in the future. of course sometimes the party fucks them over anyway eg if it doesnt like their politics sending and aggressively campaigning for a challenger to unseat their own incumbent such as the westchester county seat discussed earlier. but the point is politicians know that there is a risk to entering the primary if the party doesnt want them to etc. it may not be the direct and obvious risk some republican politicians took challenging trump in their primary but an unmistakable risk nonetheless.
regardless of the question of hypothetically who ppl would or wouldnt vote for, the process of candidate selection is not remotely centered around 'the will of voters'.

~ yes political polls are notoriously unreliable its weird that the same ppl who were talking abt how unreliable polls are 10 pages ago are now presenting them as evidence and the ppl who insisted polls were amazingly accurate 10 pages ago now are pointing out how flawed they are.
'historical patterns' are prob slightly less useless but history isnt static and j bc xyz pattern held in a previous election doesnt mean it will in the next one. and certainly not comparing 'patterns' to elections from 50 or 70 years ago lmfao. using astrology to predict elections would be about as accurate (and much more entertaining) than such an arbitrary and mathematically meaningless "statistical" comparison

~ maybe the dem party chose to release internal polls bc they know theyre losing their base and think that releasing a poll along with all the newspaper speculation about alternative candidates will make ppl believe that they are seriously considering a new candidate, & that maybe if ppl believe the party "gave it serious consideration but made a tough decision to stick with biden" that will encourage voters to stick w the party. (this strategy would work just as well with releasing a fake poll than a "real" poll; but polls are so inaccurate that what difference does it really make tbqh.) who knows tho we have no access to the relevant information, "debating" whether its a "real" poll or not seems very silly to me, as has most of the discussion abt polls in this thread in general. political science has no more basis in reality than neoclassical economics, and its 'products' should be treated as such.

the dem party is gonna do what it wants to do. the newspaper speculation if anything j gives the party cover to go forward with biden and i would be v surprised by any change to the ticket, but regardless the decision is made by the party not by any of us and i dont get the orientation of speculation about whether a replacement candidate would do better. and if its abt 'putting pressure on the party' then hb pressure on actual substantive issues instead of talking abt replacing biden with another candidate who would be just as shitty when it comes to substantive politics
Click to expand...

If you mean is there any utility in posting here no, there’s not. Everything you described above is correct, but just b/c it’s not meaningful politics doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a thread.

We’re freaking out for fun, why not?

Like I also said back a few pages— the reality is that there’s literally nothing to do but wait and se what the Dems do; but it’s not human nature to shut up and be calm in the face of potential societal collapse so—

Freak out for fun with friends. Why not
 
RaikouLover said:
Well to be clear no one has been able to locate or post this “Democratic internal poll” that has Biden losing swing states by 10 and being competitive in blue states.

Also, the “historical voting patterns” are far more static than you have suggested here. The statement that Republicans have not received even 20% of the black vote since 1964 is an empirical fact. That is 60 years of actual elections. But what people are circulating this cycle is that convicted felon Trump is set to buck these demographic trend because poorly constructed polling sites are publishing such. (Hint: they have motive to get clicks!)
Click to expand...

as i said its absolutely believable that the democratic party itself wants to propogate a nonexistent poll that shows biden doing poorly, or some other actor could do such tho democratic party staffers are obv in the best position to make that type of claim to the media. journalism is rarely that creative on its own but i suppose its not impossible that some journalist made up the poll themselves.
i rly dont think it matters one way or the other if its real or where it came from given how separated from reality political polls are, there are ofc actual reasons to think that biden approval would have down since the debate which is still only a week ago, but what a poll with unknown methodology says is not one of them even if we presumed that it is a real poll.

sometimes 'historical patterns' continue to hold and sometimes they dont. the population changes over time, and ppls views also change with 'the climate'. i do not rly trust the claim that trump is doing better against biden with black voters than prior republicans have (tho obv biden's policy of escalating genocide in palestine in the context of broad anti-zionism in BLM and when the police department of p much every large amerikan city was trained by the IOF etc etc), but the 'historical pattern' is not in itself evidence that the pattern will continue. patterns are just patterns, they do not explain or predict future behaviors, they are j descriptions of past behavior and they do not have intrinsic meaning in themselves they can only provide empirical context for a (class) analysis.
 
Chou Toshio said:
If you mean is there any utility in posting here no, there’s not. Everything you described above is correct, but just b/c it’s not meaningful politics doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a thread.

We’re freaking out for fun, why not?

Like I also said back a few pages— the reality is that there’s literally nothing to do but wait and se what the Dems do; but it’s not human nature to shut up and be calm in the face of potential societal collapse so—

Freak out for fun with friends. Why not
Click to expand...

o yea its fine for ppl to talk abt whatever, it j feels like very random to me to talk about "what if (something thats never going to happen)" but theres nothing 'wrong' with it
 
juoean said:
but the 'historical pattern' is not in itself evidence that the pattern will continue. patterns are just patterns, they do not explain or predict future behaviors, they are j descriptions of past behavior and they do not have intrinsic meaning in themselves they can only provide empirical context for a (class) analysis.
Click to expand...

This is where I disagree. There must be a historically seismic event to change voting behavior. In 1964 it was the Civil Rights era and policy. The 60 year voting pattern holds in every election; not just presidential. The 2022 midterms it was 86-13 Democrats. Look at the demographic breakdown in any Governor race… it is the same pattern. Your argument is logical on face value however it is just flawed to say “well it can change because it is not predictive.” It can be said with certainty that Trump will not get 25-30% of the Black vote like these polls are suggesting. Polls that suggest such belong in the trash.
 
faint said:
Biden is cooked. Enjoy 4 more years of Trump because one man wouldn't step down for the greater good of the country.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1808204695548448807
Click to expand...
Was curious as to what the predicted result would be according to this data and uuuh...

1720050007979.png


map's looking so red, Rishi Sunak's gonna be warning America about a Labour supermajority.
 
RaikouLover said:
This is where I disagree. There must be a historically seismic event to change voting behavior. In 1964 it was the Civil Rights era and policy. The 60 year voting pattern holds in every election; not just presidential. The 2022 midterms it was 86-13 Democrats. Look at the demographic breakdown in any Governor race… it is the same pattern. Your argument is logical on face value however it is just flawed to say “well it can change because it is not predictive.” It can be said with certainty that Trump will not get 25-30% of the Black vote like these polls are suggesting. Polls that suggest such belong in the trash.
Click to expand...

i dont entirely disagree w this, there are various little shifts continuously but a qualitative leap is relatively rare. and yes obviously the inability of republicans to get black voters anywhere over the past 60 years is not a random coincidental pattern, it is relatively easy to analyze and understand the main reasons why.

fwiw tho demographics have not been as reliable predictors of voter behavior in other cases both within the "us" and globally. obv being black under amerikan settler rule is a unique class position and i def would not take the pov that fluctuations among latine voters or white women voters are an indication of coming fluctuations among black voters. nonetheless, this "multicultural imperialism" or whatever one wants to call it, where non white ppl are included as active participants in US imperial terror all the way up to the highest levels the presidency the head of apparatuses like DHS etc, this is a relatively new regime of imperialism and certainly is designed to try to break apart demographic political blocks (not primarily aimed at voting behavior but cant rly affect politics without secondarily impacting voting). idk if the 'multicultural imperialism' propoganda system has been all that successful at undermining black or indigenous liberation movements much less any secondary impacts on elections, but idt changes in black voter behavior in the near future is so ~completely out of the realm of possibility~ as you imply.

however i dont disagree that these 25-30% claims sound wild, and from my pov pretty much every political poll belongs in the garbage can so no disagreement on that point either
 
CaffeineBoost said:
Was curious as to what the predicted result would be according to this data and uuuh...

View attachment 645103

map's looking so red, Rishi Sunak's gonna be warning America about a Labour supermajority.
Click to expand...

You know it's VERY bad for Biden and the dems if New Mexico and Virginia risks going red.

At this point the dems 100% deserve to get slam dunked on if they are so delusional and foolish to think Biden still stands a chance against Trump for a second term. Absolutely no pity from me. They did this to themselves and have no one else to blame.

Good luck for another 4 years of Trump.
 
juoean said:
i dont entirely disagree w this, there are various little shifts continuously but a qualitative leap is relatively rare. and yes obviously the inability of republicans to get black voters anywhere over the past 60 years is not a random coincidental pattern, it is relatively easy to analyze and understand the main reasons why.

fwiw tho demographics have not been as reliable predictors of voter behavior in other cases both within the "us" and globally. obv being black under amerikan settler rule is a unique class position and i def would not take the pov that fluctuations among latine voters or white women voters are an indication of coming fluctuations among black voters. nonetheless, this "multicultural imperialism" or whatever one wants to call it, where non white ppl are included as active participants in US imperial terror all the way up to the highest levels the presidency the head of apparatuses like DHS etc, this is a relatively new regime of imperialism and certainly is designed to try to break apart demographic political blocks (not primarily aimed at voting behavior but cant rly affect politics without secondarily impacting voting). idk if the 'multicultural imperialism' propoganda system has been all that successful at undermining black or indigenous liberation movements much less any secondary impacts on elections, but idt changes in black voter behavior in the near future is so ~completely out of the realm of possibility~ as you imply.

however i dont disagree that these 25-30% claims sound wild, and from my pov pretty much every political poll belongs in the garbage can so no disagreement on that point either
Click to expand...

The GOP doesn't need to get 20% black voters to doom the dems. If a sizeable portion of that voters base that normally votes blue chooses to not vote or vote a third party for a given election cycle that is more than enough to cost dems the victory.

The dems need to get their act together and for fuck sake NOT to take any of their voter base for granted. They're not entitled to anyone's vote by default and don't assume a certain group of your voter base will continue to vote for you forever.
 
Edit: To Fox News lol, b/c just need the video of KJP being awful

I’ve always despised the contempt dripping from this woman’s tone— nothing but gaslighting, no sign of anything but contempt for the media or voters from her, but this was particularly egregious.

Even when I was a brat, I knew that the difference between an excuse and an explanation was that when you give an explanation you intend to take responsibility.

At work, if I ever said the phrase “that’s not an excuse but an explanation,” and then didn’t immediately follow it up with proposed action to right the mistake and take accountability— I’d be fired and rightly so.

Media: “Isn’t this President accountable to the people?”
KJP: “I would hope the people remember everything this President has delivered for them— the most historic modern Presidency.”

Fuck you. Fuck off— you’re useless, worse than useless because you’re making it worse.

Get Biden out here to deliver the media responses. Show us he can.
 
Last edited:
Ashaebi said:
You know it's VERY bad for Biden and the dems if New Mexico and Virginia risks going red.

At this point the dems 100% deserve to get slam dunked on if they are so delusional and foolish to think Biden still stands a chance against Trump for a second term. Absolutely no pity from me. They did this to themselves and have no one else to blame.

Good luck for another 4 years of Trump.
Click to expand...

who even is this "they"? every person who has ever voted for any democrat? ppl who promote a certain liberal discourse? anyone who thinks that biden has a chance to win which is literally j a guess about the future not even someone's politics lmao?

ur allowed to feel anger or whatever other emotions but u cant j condemn tens of millions of people and especially not with such an absurdly broad and imprecise net that you have cast here. everyone is influenced by propoganda to some extent, and none of us are ~innocent.

re chuo vaush is a racist directly responsible for numerous campaigns of interpersonal violence, but 'putting that aside' yea white house press secretary is a wild "job" and like a concentration of the most ridiculous aspects of the theater that is bourgeois electoral politics.
 
Divine Retribution said:
Vaush is like the left-wing equivalent of Sargon of Akkad and I mean that in the most insulting possible way.
Click to expand...
I legit can't believe people ever listened to him. He's just a condescending pseudo-intellectual who picked the left lane for his career as a grifter. The fact that he now, AFTER his horse and child porn folders were leaked still has supporters is a sign of serious political brainrot

In general, I think political content needs to be demonetized on social media. There's too much grifting being done on both sides and all directions of the compass that directly accelerates genuine societal collaps

From the guy that decapitated his own father becaus of Qanon to Twitter schizophrenics defending pedophilia with all their heart, it needs to stop
 
Local Dog said:
I legit can't believe people ever listened to him. He's just a condescending pseudo-intellectual who picked the left lane for his career as a grifter. The fact that he now, AFTER his horse and child porn folders were leaked still has supporters is a sign of serious political brainrot

In general, I think political content needs to be demonetized on social media. There's too much grifting being done on both sides and all directions of the compass that directly accelerates genuine societal collaps

From the guy that decapitated his own father becaus of Qanon to Twitter schizophrenics defending pedophilia with all their heart, it needs to stop
Click to expand...

Vaush is a garbage human being. Please do not take him seriously.
 
Ashaebi said:
You know it's VERY bad for Biden and the dems if New Mexico and Virginia risks going red.
Click to expand...

They don’t risk going red.

Ashaebi said:
At this point the dems 100% deserve to get slam dunked on if they are so delusional and foolish to think Biden still stands a chance against Trump for a second term. Absolutely no pity from me. They did this to themselves and have no one else to blame.

Good luck for another 4 years of Trump.
Click to expand...

I guess political scientists such as Alan Lictman, Rachel Bitecofer, and Dr. Jason Johnson are delusional idiots because you say so.

You are hurling lots of vitriol towards the Democrats. It sounds more personal than rational.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top