2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Ye the FT is super-MAGA and they don't ask the proper questions.
The questions they are asking are fine. The conclusions you are drawing are not. Hint: democrats shifting leftward on some issues does not preclude republicans shifting rightward on others.
The Democrats have been in power, and have been pushing leftist policies the people didn't really like, so they were voted out of power. If the Republicans go right in ways people dont really like (it seems to be where this is heading) they will be voted out accordingly too.
That is kind of how democracy works. In Britain pretty much the same thing happened in reverse.
I dont suspect Trump's brand of right wing populism is a very good idea. And I dont expect the Republican Party to course correct in the next 4 years. So at this point you just have to be hopeful the Democrat Party will reverse course back to the center, so they become more palatable.
The Democrats have been in power, and have been pushing leftist policies the people didn't really like, so they were voted out of power. If the Republicans go right in ways people dont really like (it seems to be where this is heading) they will be voted out accordingly too.
That is kind of how democracy works. In Britain pretty much the same thing happened in reverse.
I dont suspect Trump's brand of right wing populism is a very good idea. And I dont expect the Republican Party to course co
I wasn't really disputing much of that. I was mostly taking issue with the line "while republicans stayed basically where they always had been". That may be true as far as the narrow scope of issues presented in that graphic, but I don't think it's remotely true in general. Luciom was drawing a very general conclusion from a very narrow and specific set of data points.
I wasn't really disputing much of that. I was mostly taking issue with the line "while republicans stayed basically where they always had been". That may be true as far as the narrow scope of issues presented in that graphic, but I don't think it's remotely true in general. Luciom was drawing a very general conclusion from a very narrow and specific set of data points.
Well, for good or bad the Republican Party has become a cult of personality, with very little in the way of positions or ideology. I dont think anyone can accurately predict where the party will go if/when Trump leaves. It is hard to predict where it will go day to day, as so much seems to rely on Trump's whims and those of people loyal to him he is putting in power.
I dont know how accurate the caricatures are; but his nominee for Secretary of Defense is being portrayed as an anti-China war hawk, and proposed Director of National Intelligence a China apologist. No real ideological consistency, other than perceived loyalty to Trump.
Well, for good or bad the Republican Party has become a cult of personality, with very little in the way of positions or ideology. I dont think anyone can accurately predict where the party will go if/when Trump leaves. It is hard to predict where it will go day to day, as so much seems to rely on Trump's whims and those of people loyal to him he is putting in power.
I dont know how accurate the caricatures are; but his nominee for Secretary of Defense is being portrayed as an anti-China war ha
I agree with the general thesis that it has become a cult (some elements of cult of personality, but moreso just a general cult), but I also think it's pretty undeniable that if we could distill some sort of ideological footing for the republican party of 2024, it would be "more right wing" by most reasonable people's standards than the republican party of 1998. Or, to put it in different terms, what might have been considered the more extreme positions/elements of the party in 1998 are mainstream in 2024.
I agree with the general thesis that it has become a cult (some elements of cult of personality, but moreso just a general cult), but I also think it's pretty undeniable that if we could distill some sort of ideological footing for the republican party of 2024, it would be "more right wing" by most reasonable people's standards than the republican party of 1998. Or, to put it in different terms, what might have been considered the more extreme positions/elements of the party in 1998 are mainstre
The same can be said for the left. Both parties have gone extreme relative the standards of 1998.
The same can be said for the left. Both parties have gone extreme relative the standards of 1998.
Certainly on some issues, yes. Personally, I don't think that the stuff the left has gone on is anywhere near "as bad" as the stuff the right has gone right on, but I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.
so maybe, just maybe 1998 is the past that is referenced by the term "make america great again".... ???
I was thinking it meant the 40's and 50's where one income was enough for a family of four. Plus, you know, the Negro thing.
so maybe, just maybe 1998 is the past that is referenced by the term "make america great again".... ???
I was thinking it meant the 40's and 50's where one income was enough for a family of four. Plus, you know, the Negro thing.
Which thing? the highest share of black voters for a republican candidate in 40+ years?
I wasn't really disputing much of that. I was mostly taking issue with the line "while republicans stayed basically where they always had been". That may be true as far as the narrow scope of issues presented in that graphic, but I don't think it's remotely true in general. Luciom was drawing a very general conclusion from a very narrow and specific set of data points.
They did with immigration and they did with affirmative action.
In Which policy areas do you think the republican party moved very far to the right of the median voter? policy areas.
They did with immigration and they did with affirmative action.
In Which policy areas do you think the republican party moved very far to the right of the median voter? policy areas.
Not sure, I'll defer to someone who knows more about specific policy positions, which I do not. I'm speaking on general attitudes on things like science denial, religion and what role it should play in society, normalisation of conspiratorial-type thinking, embracing authoritarianism, that sort of stuff.
Regardless, your conclusion that republicans have stayed where they were in general doesn't follow from your graphic which showed attitudes all of 2 specific policy positions.
I agree with the general thesis that it has become a cult (some elements of cult of personality, but moreso just a general cult), but I also think it's pretty undeniable that if we could distill some sort of ideological footing for the republican party of 2024, it would be "more right wing" by most reasonable people's standards than the republican party of 1998. Or, to put it in different terms, what might have been considered the more extreme positions/elements of the party in 1998 are mainstre
Rightwing and leftwing can only be defined in POLICIES, not in general vague other sense. Actual policies, real ideas that you put in the law and, through the violence of the state (or lack thereof) affect lives directly.
Not only it is deniable, it is grotesquely false that republicans today are more rightwing than in 1998.
In 1998 homosexuality was abhorred by rightwing people.
80% of people favored the death penalty for murder in late 1990 (!!!)
The republican party as all normal parties should do in a normal democracy, followed public opinion staying a tad to the right of it on basically everything, as you would expect from, you know, the party on the right.
Democrats stopped giving a **** about what the median american thought after Clinton and decided "they know better" so not only (as expected and reasonable) they stayed a little to the left of median, they went completly away from anything normal in a world they alone lived in for several topics, and called everyone who disagreed something-phobic, racist, fascist.
They truly hate democracy at it's core.
Not sure, I'll defer to someone who knows more about specific policy positions, which I do not. I'm speaking on general attitudes on things like science denial, religion and what role it should play in society, normalisation of conspiratorial-type thinking, embracing authoritarianism, that sort of stuff.
Regardless, your conclusion that republicans have stayed where they were doesn't follow from your graphic which showed all of 2 specific policy positions.
Republicans are exceptionally less "theocratic" than they were 25 years ago . Democrats deny consensus science on extremely important topics . And there is no embracing of "authoritarianism", the most extreme forms of authoritarianism in the last decades were the patriot act (fully bipartisan, except at some point Trump said "no more"), and covid management (where democrats with few exceptions were dramatically more authoritarian than republicans).
Lol there are even republicans in favor of cannabis legalization these days and you dare claim they are more authoritarian than in 1998. Why do you lie about this?
Rightwing and leftwing can only be defined in POLICIES, not in general vague other sense. Actual policies, real ideas that you put in the law and, through the violence of the state (or lack thereof) affect lives directly.
I don't think I agree with this. I think there are left wing and right wing archetypes in a broader sense, and you can describe a person as "left wing" or "right wing" almost as a personality type, or perhaps describe a hypothetical policy as "left wing" or "right wing" based on the substance of the policy alone, without it having being proposed by a specific party.
Democrats stopped giving a **** about what the median american thought after Clinton and decided "they know better" so not only (as expected and reasonable) they stayed a little to the left of median, they went completly away from anything normal in a world they alone lived in for several topics, and called everyone who disagreed something-phobic, racist, fascist.
They truly hate democracy at it's core.
It’s bad enough that we get buried in 90% of your thoughts on our political system, only periodically exposing the other 10% you want to say unfiltered but would lead to your banning. Stop trying to tell us what democrats think or explain what and why they do. You are not a democrat, don’t live here and have no actual experience or training that gives any qualification to your opinions.
No one cares that you want to completely demonize one side. Just stfu.
Source?
So you keep saying. Even if I were to give you the trans stuff, which I don't, that's one topic. I'm not giving you the climate change stuff because there is consensus science on that. Republicans embrace science denial as a core tenet of their ideology.
And there is no embracing of "authoritarianism", the most extreme forms of authoritarianism in the last decades were the patriot act (fully bipartisan, except at some point Trump said "no more"), and covid management (where democrats with few exceptions were dramatically more authoritarian than republicans).
Lol there are even republicans in favor of cannabis legalization these days and you dare claim they are more authoritarian than in 1998. Why do you lie about this?
They wanted to keep their guy in power after he lost the election. They've embraced a leader who has taken lying from being a rhetorical tactic to the point of obliterating reality and the notion of objective truth. Seems pretty authoritarian to me.
I listened to an interesting Chris Hedges interview last night where he said the election was a battle between the corporate capitalists vs the oligarchic capitalists-- basically the plutocracy vs oligarchy debate.
I don't think I agree with this. I think there are left wing and right wing archetypes in a broader sense, and you can describe a person as "left wing" or "right wing" almost as a personality type, or perhaps describe a hypothetical policy as "left wing" or "right wing" based on the substance of the policy alone, without it having being proposed by a specific party.
Just to add to this - do you think if you talked to someone like Playbig for 5 minutes, without political ideology or support of specific parties even coming up in the conversation, you wouldn't bet your net worth on him being a right winger? That's what I mean by "personality type".
Rightwing and leftwing can only be defined in POLICIES, not in general vague other sense. Actual policies, real ideas that you put in the law and, through the violence of the state (or lack thereof) affect lives directly.
Not only it is deniable, it is grotesquely false that republicans today are more rightwing than in 1998.
In 1998 homosexuality was abhorred by rightwing people.
80% of people favored the death penalty for murder in late 1990 (!!!)
The republican party as all normal parties s
This post, and frankly a lot of your recent posts, seem premised on a flawed conception of democracy. Believing in democracy requires believing in the concept of giving people a say in how they are governed. Believing in democracy requires accepting the results of fair elections. Believing in democracy does not require believing that the will of the majority, as expressed by the election of a particular candidate of the promotion of a particular policy, is inherently or presumptively correct. In other words, democracy doesn't require blind faith in crowd sourcing as a flawless tool (or even the best tool) for making every decision or crafting every policy.
This post, and frankly a lot of your recent posts, seem premised on a flawed conception of democracy. Believing in democracy requires believing in the concept of giving people a say in how they are governed. Believing in democracy requires accepting the results of fair elections. Believing in democracy does not require believing that the will of the majority, as expressed by the election of a particular candidate of the promotion of a particular policy, is inherently or presumptively correct.
Well said. It's frankly a toddler level misconception.
Given it was the most important issue according to actual data for swing voters in swing states, is it obsession, or is it focusing on what can make or break a candidate (in those areas)?
Yeah, producing 100x more anti-trans content than others produce pro trans content is called an obsession.
We are at the point where about 10 different far right posters have brought up trans people and literally nobody on the left is talking about it.
Then you guys have internalized your pathetic victimhood to the point that you insist its the left who is obsessed with trans people.
You guys desperately need a marginalized group to bully or you just feel so empty and listless that I can't begin to imagine how empty your lives are that this is what you really really care about.
Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe the obsession really
Yeah, producing 100x more anti-trans content than others produce pro trans content is called an obsession.
We are at the point where about 10 different far right posters have brought up trans people and literally nobody on the left is talking about it.
Then you guys have internalized your pathetic victimhood to the point that you insist its the left who is obsessed with trans people.
You guys desperately need a marginalized group to bully or you just feel so empty and listless that I can't begin
No anti trans content has been produced
