• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged 2024 Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
angrysoba said:
The thing is if a presidential candidate that is likely to win the party nomination and be near favourite to win the election, says he wants to be a dictator or starts talking about immigrants destroying the blood of the nation, then of course the media would and should cover it even if he is only saying it to get in the news. People need to be aware of his fascistic outbursts.

You might say “but if they cover him he might win” which suggests that in your opinion the job of the media is to take a side in the election. I don’t see why that should be so.
Click to expand...

IMO the problem isn't the press covering the candidate's Fascist pronouncements, it's the fact that the coverage tends to increase both the breadth and depth of his support. :mad:

A large minority of Americans have bought into the America First messaging and are looking for a hard man to make it happen. The fact that they think President Trump is that hard man would be risible were it not for the consequences of him being elected again. :(
 
It's all about standing up to The Enemy... which is typical of the signalling that goes on in religious communities/cults to keep reminding & emphasizing the members' sense of identity as part of that group. These membership signals (called "CrEDs" by sociologists, short for "CRedibility Enhancing Displays") are seen to be of higher value if there is perceived to be an alleged cost or even risk in sending them, because then the rest of your group sees that, by choosing to keep displaying CrEDs anyway, you're choosing to accept those costs/risks for the sake of your solidarity with the group. So once the group's behavior has started the CrED cycle, any resistance, pushback, or disagreement only causes them to CrED even harder because it increases the value of doing so.
 
With my highlighting:

Delvo said:
It's all about standing up to The Enemy... which is typical of the signalling that goes on in religious communities/cults to keep reminding & emphasizing the members' sense of identity as part of that group. These membership signals (called "CrEDs" by sociologists, short for "CRedibility Enhancing Displays") are seen to be of higher value if there is perceived to be an alleged cost or even risk in sending them, because then the rest of your group sees that, by choosing to keep displaying CrEDs anyway, you're choosing to accept those costs/risks for the sake of your solidarity with the group. So once the group's behavior has started the CrED cycle, any resistance, pushback, or disagreement only causes them to CrED even harder because it increases the value of doing so.
Click to expand...


I've been referring to that phenomenon as "stupid signalling". Now I know what the sociologists call it.
 
Pixel42 said:
That's not how polling works.

Reputable polling companies work hard to ensure that their sample is representative. That means if, say, 10% of the population is over 70 and 20% under 30 then 10% of the people in the sample will be over 70 and 20% under 30. Same for things like educational level, ethnicity etc. The sample must be a representative cross section of the entire population. Then they ask them who they are currently planning to vote for, their opinion of Biden and Trump etc.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. They might figure out the percentages of the population and then oversample the smaller groups to get a statistically significant sample. Totally acceptable if done right, but it can be made to sound weird. Remember the "Oversampling" scandal a few years ago? Unskew the polls!
 
Good article. If one's political party is made up of groups of malcontents, won't they eventually go after each other and destroy the party from within? I realize that article is mainly about what's going on in Gaza but if you think about it there have been other "disagreements" between certain groups that tend to lean Left. The Feminists have been completely gutted by the LGBTQ+ whatever the latest letters in addition (the alphabet people group) Allowing men to compete in women's sports and the like. When you have that many groups at odds with each other, isn't it near impossible to keep everyone happy and voting for you?
 
"If one's political party is made up of groups of malcontents, won't they eventually go after each other and destroy the party from within?"

Yes, if what the MAGA Squad and the Freedom Caucus are doing is any indication. Talk about malcontents!
 
Stacyhs said:
"If one's political party is made up of groups of malcontents, won't they eventually go after each other and destroy the party from within?"

Yes, if what the MAGA Squad and the Freedom Caucus are doing is any indication. Talk about malcontents!
Click to expand...

If the bar to pass for a successful political party is "Not quite as bad as the rabid right", then it's both easy and pointless.

It's just like your presidential candidate being viable on the grounds that he's not as bad as Trump.

Vote Democrat! We're slightly less-awful than the deplorables, and while our guy is older, he's not bat **** crazy like their guy.

The "centre" in politics has been moved right by the far-right. A sharp shift left is what's needed to re-balance it. The right laughably claims Democrats are communist anyway, what would actually be lost be embracing a few more socialist and non-pro-Israel policies?
 
Prepare yourself for this from Trump: The primaries were stolen!
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/09/15/americans-gloomy-about-economy/70833096007/
Even those who identify with the two political parties are uneasy about whom their organizations will nominate. A recent AP-NORC poll found that Democrats and Republicans are also not especially confident that their party’s primary contests will result in a candidate who can win the general election in November. Additionally, there are some doubts on both sides that the emerging candidates will represent their party’s views or Americans overall.
Click to expand...
 
The Atheist said:
what would actually be lost be embracing a few more socialist and non-pro-Israel policies?
Click to expand...
Them. They would be lost. That's what you aren't hearing. When someone says "Biden is more electable than candidate X," they mean "I, Insert Name Here, will personally refuse to vote for candidate X even if it means Trump winning and/or whatever consequences I use to argue that you personally ought to vote for Biden."
 
The Atheist said:
If the bar to pass for a successful political party is "Not quite as bad as the rabid right", then it's both easy and pointless.

It's just like your presidential candidate being viable on the grounds that he's not as bad as Trump.

Vote Democrat! We're slightly less-awful than the deplorables, and while our guy is older, he's not bat **** crazy like their guy.

The "centre" in politics has been moved right by the far-right. A sharp shift left is what's needed to re-balance it. The right laughably claims Democrats are communist anyway, what would actually be lost be embracing a few more socialist and non-pro-Israel policies?
Click to expand...

How is your post related to mine? I see no connection, so I don't understand why you quoted my comment.
 
Sorry, lost it. A story on primaries.

There are now democrats and republicans worried that the primaries will not produce their best candidate.
 
Last edited:
Americans Sour On The Primary Election Process And Major Political Parties

The AP-NORC poll found a widespread lack of trust in both major political
parties among U.S. adults overall. About one-quarter of U.S. adults say they
have “only a little” confidence or “none at all” that both the Democratic Party
and Republican Party have a fair process for selecting a presidential nominee.
About half of independents have that low level of confidence in both party’s
processes, compared with one-quarter of Republicans and 19% of Democrats.

Slightly fewer than half of U.S. adults — 46% — say they are pessimistic
about the way the country’s leaders are chosen. About half of U.S. adults
are pessimistic about the future of the Republican Party, including one-third
of Republicans and 45% of independents. The poll found 45% of U.S. adults
are pessimistic about the future of the Democratic Party, including about
one-quarter of Democrats and 41% of independents.
Click to expand...


I'm guessing this is it.
 
Stacyhs said:
How is your post related to mine? I see no connection, so I don't understand why you quoted my comment.
Click to expand...

You were suggesting the Republican Party is in danger of destruction from within.

It's a two-way street.
 
Stacyhs said:
"If one's political party is made up of groups of malcontents, won't they eventually go after each other and destroy the party from within?"

Yes, if what the MAGA Squad and the Freedom Caucus are doing is any indication. Talk about malcontents!
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
How is your post related to mine? I see no connection, so I don't understand why you quoted my comment.
Click to expand...

The Atheist said:
You were suggesting the Republican Party is in danger of destruction from within.

It's a two-way street.
Click to expand...

I was giving an example of malcontents inside the GOP who are causing chaos within the GOP. Can you cite any malcontents within the Democratic Party that are causing anywhere near that level of chaos? Not even The Squad is causing such chaos.
 
The article I posted gave details of challenges to sitting members. It's definitely not analogous to the Orange Party, but it still gives them ammunition.
 
Nikki Haley Didn't Say Slavery Caused The Civil War

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is facing significant backlash
after failing to mention slavery as a driving force behind the Civil War
during a campaign stop in New Hampshire. At an event on Wednesday,
a voter asked Haley: "what was the cause of the United States Civil War?"

She replied that the cause "was basically how government was going
to run, the freedoms, and what people could and couldn't do. I think
it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights
of the people are," Haley continued. "And I will always stand by the
fact that, I think, government was intended to secure the rights and
freedoms of the people."

After Haley gave her answer, the voter told her that it was "astonishing"
that she gave an answer "without mentioning the word 'slavery.'"
Click to expand...


Interesting. She was near the ball park...
 
Given that Trump, more than likely, and Biden will be the candidates, when would be the best time to start sending in my 25 dollars.. maybe once a month? I feel it is wasted to send it now. I am retired.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom