• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

New Hampshire may be in play for Trump in the 2020 election.

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
12,046
4,171
860
This is exactly what the Resetera people think mate, just swap L/R.
So the Obama and even Clinton voters here that are sick of the bullshit, they're "right wingers", because you (or resetera) say so.

 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
13,888
28,177
1,040
Agreed.

Even if you say Trump WILL lose 5% of the people who voted for him in 2016 (some collection of Hillary hating bluedogs and gullible useful idiots who will believe that Trump caused COVID and murdered 200k+ people), he will gain that back and more from the aforementioned groups.

Hell I never hated Trump, but I voted Johnson in 2016. This time I am whole hog on the Trump train.

I have wavered back and forth a couple times, but I think what I've landed on (even before the Biden laptop scandal) is that Trump will win. And if he doesn't, it's because:

(a) The media (and social media) put 110% effort into influencing the election outcome via consant streams of lies and propaganda
(b) Dems steal the election via mail in ballot chicanery
(c) Combination of (a) and (b)

I don't think (a) alone would do it. But coupled with (b), maybe. Look at all the indicators; registrations, the rallies/enthusiasm. Numerous big name never Trumpers (or close to it) coming around. Now the laptop debacle. Campaigning behavior (Biden pulling ads out of 'wish list' type states in order to fortify states the polls claim he's leading handily... Trump putting resources into states like NH, ME, and MN).

I just can't see any way Biden actually wins a "free and fair" election.

Agreed.

To be clear when I say I hated Trump, it wasn't because of his politics or the 'he is going to kill everyone' rhetoric in 2016. I disliked him for the same reasons I dislike any annoying celebrity type I don't really pay attention to. Having lived in Manhattan, I also knew the disinformation version of CP5 and his full page ad, before I dug down and did my research.

That's why I ignored 2016... I just didn't care, we were trading a warmonger [Obama] for a novelty candidate or HRC. After the left ignored Obama bombing the world, I didn't think we had a chance in 2016 to get someone decent. I didn't like Trump, didn't listen to Trump, figured he was more of the same [a man can only take so many years of endless war, especially when everybody went silent during Obama despite him being no better than a Bush]. I only ever listened to him the year Pelosi made a big stink about the SOTU, and I realized the reason the media hated him was because he actually was trying to end war.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
13,888
28,177
1,040
Exactly this, the echo chamber that exists on Era is mirrored here. It’s hilarious that most on Gaf can’t see that.

You are comparing a heavily moderated site where any wrongthink is banned instantly to an extremely lightly moderated site which will naturally lean more right due to the very fact freely speaking your mind is now considered 'right wing' and the coddled left run away from direct debate.

Many, many of us are the disaffected left. I was with the antiwar left, the left that championed individuality and individual freedom, the left that believed in free speech.

That old left is now considered 'fascist' by the idiots on reset because the left has swung full authoritarian and identitarian. This 'both sides' bullshit is so obviously bullshit you might as well have a photo of it still squeezing out a bulls ass.
 
Jun 26, 2013
5,513
6,497
800
Don’t look at polls. Look at swing states early results. They should skew heavily to Biden because of the mail in push by Dems due to covid. They aren’t. The only place that looks like I expected it to is Pennsylvania, everywhere else is a close, and shocking Republicans lead in places like Michigan and Wisconsin.

There are a lot of assumptions, splicing, and satisficing with polls. Trust the hard data, the ballots.
Also, just because X number of Democrats have voted, it doesn't necessarily mean they are voting for Biden. With stuff like the WalkAway campaign and Trump gaining favorability among minorities, there is a greater likelihood that the average Democrat will defect than the average Republican defecting.

Florida is not showing encouraging signs for Biden, either. 2 days ago, the IPEV + VBM gap was +5.2% D. Yesterday, it fell to +4.72% D. Right now, it is +4.28% D. If we assume that each day, 0.4 points are chipped off, by election day, the gap will only be +1.5% D.
 

ZZZZ

Member
Jun 7, 2020
1,254
2,604
440
This is exactly what the Resetera people think mate, just swap L/R.
Yeah, we support violence, rioting, arsonist, rapist, criminals, call a Judge that adopted 2 Haiti children "white colonizer", wish death on people, cancel people, try to incite the mob to go after people's jobs or ruin their lives as long as it supports the narrative, we are exactly like ResetEra.

You are full of shit.
 

DeaDPooL_jlp

Member
Sep 20, 2015
2,528
3,593
580
I am a member of and like both forums. Most of the leftists there are completely delusional in what they perceive to be the truth but honestly most of the right wingers here are EXACTLY the same. Resetera and Neogaf are both political echo chambers of their respective beliefs, not reality.

As a non-American it’s interesting to watch.

Neogaf at least allows discussions of all candidates or political views. Reeee will ban you just for saying "Trump is not as bad as I thought".
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
Jun 9, 2006
12,569
4,113
1,685
Prosper, Tx
i feel this about equivalent to the left feeling they can flip Texas. Its a cute theory, but the results will always bring you back to reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrettWeir

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
43,968
24,230
1,805
Seriously, its like the same thing Dems thought in 2016. They thought Texas and other deep red states were in play. They thought the blue wall could never be breached. Are we doing the same thing now? No, NH is not in play. Lets focus on what can work, not some pie in the sky ideas.

Yeah, I used to follow this Twitter account last cycle when I was voting for Clinton and wanted to convince myself she had it in the bag.


She had me believing the Clinton was going to get Texas in a landslide and that all of the polls of women saying they would vote for Trump were actually wrong, because they were just saying that in front of their husbands and would change their vote as soon as they got in the booth.

Neogaf at least allows discussions of all candidates or political views. Reeee will ban you just for saying "Trump is not as bad as I thought".

That's because he's liTeRrAlLy a NaZi!!!!!1
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: DeaDPooL_jlp

joe_zazen

Member
May 2, 2017
4,261
6,808
575
I am a member of and like both forums. Most of the leftists there are completely delusional in what they perceive to be the truth but honestly most of the right wingers here are EXACTLY the same. Resetera and Neogaf are both political echo chambers of their respective beliefs, not reality.

As a non-American it’s interesting to watch.

It is NOT the same.

we don't ban ‘wrongthink’, nor are we out to destroy people. No one here is on a righteous crusade to make people think and act according to some ideological dogma. No one here supports censorship or a media that lies in order to gain power for ‘their side’ or destroying people’s lives because they used the wrong word or phrase.

There is a very powerful movement that wants global integration with real teeth, based on rule by experts and elites. To do that, the globalists have to break America, remove the incredibly potent constitutional protections of the individual, denigrate democracy, & severely weaken national sovereignty. To make that happen, they have to GET THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN THE RIGHT POSITIONS: media, politics, fed bureaucracy, NSA/CIA/FBI/etc. That is why there is Trump hate. He works for none of those things. If you cannot see the rot in the institutions, you are not paying attention. 80% of media is nothing but propaganda. Tech is fully onboard (even Wikipedia has been weaponise). They have no conscience and will use things like race riots, climate change, and covid to damage the country and the institutions. the first big institutional attack will be scotus packing, which will compromise the highest court and be the way the constitution gets subverted.

I think Trump means well, but he is just one guy. And if he could effectively fight the globalists, I am sure he’d be dead. Still, he is all we got. We can hope the institutions remain robust enough until enough people see what is being done, and it can be fought.

It might be too late. we are teaching kids to not venerate democracy and freedom and the nation, teaching them to see it as nothing but white supremacist and inherently rotten, to not value democracy and the constitution, to not value family and individual rights...each year, more and more.

I don’t want utopia. I want to be left alone.
 

Corrik

Member
Jan 20, 2018
1,647
1,062
555
Pittsburgh
Don’t look at polls. Look at swing states early results. They should skew heavily to Biden because of the mail in push by Dems due to covid. They aren’t. The only place that looks like I expected it to is Pennsylvania, everywhere else is a close, and shocking Republicans lead in places like Michigan and Wisconsin.

There are a lot of assumptions, splicing, and satisficing with polls. Trust the hard data, the ballots.
Do you have numbers on this?

I live in PA. I can tell you Red voters pretty much refuse to use mail in ballots and our early voting I believe is all mail in. Republican vote in PA will only show up on day of for the most part. But, do you have numbers on Michigan and Wisconsin? First I heard that.
 

epicnemesis

Member
May 9, 2008
1,647
3,020
1,185
Do you have numbers on this?

I live in PA. I can tell you Red voters pretty much refuse to use mail in ballots and our early voting I believe is all mail in. Republican vote in PA will only show up on day of for the most part. But, do you have numbers on Michigan and Wisconsin? First I heard that.

It’s hard to find a place that aggregates the data instead of spinning the data. NBC seems to be doing a good job with that. I think it only takes mail in ballots to account I think. I would imagine early in person voting, if allowed would be similar or skew red:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/michigan-results


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/wisconsin-results
 

Corrik

Member
Jan 20, 2018
1,647
1,062
555
Pittsburgh
It’s hard to find a place that aggregates the data instead of spinning the data. NBC seems to be doing a good job with that. I think it only takes mail in ballots to account I think. I would imagine early in person voting, if allowed would be similar or skew red:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/michigan-results


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/wisconsin-results
Thanks. I cannot deny those sources say exactly what you say they do. It's kind of surprising to me. Everything else I read indicated the opposite about those states and early voting.

This is what I am seeing on another site.

Wisconsin
Total ballots cast of 3.6 million registered voters: 844,000 for whom Hawkfish has support scores. Biden: 61 percent. Trump: 39 percent.
Ballots cast by newly registered voters: 66,000. Biden: 61 percent. Trump: 39 percent.
Ballots cast by sporadic voters: 10,000. Biden: 53 percent. Trump: 47 percent.
Republican takeaway: The numbers on early voting and polling don’t tell the whole story of Wisconsin. Rural whites are often undersampled in surveys and data on early votes aren’t always reported because smalltown clerks don’t have the resources to quickly process and report the information to the state.
Keith Gilkes (R), the Champion Group in Wisconsin: “In the past year or more, we've held more registration events and had more new registrations in rural parts of the state that Donald Trump won compared to what Hillary Clinton won. So, we have an influx of new voters and new registrants as well. If there’s a slight uptick in white non-college educated in the rural areas of the state, it’s hard to account for that in polls. People take this state for granted all the time, and it comes back to bite them in the ass, which Hillary Clinton learned.”
Democratic takeaway: Coronavirus cases are on the rise in Wisconsin, along with voter anger at Trump’s handling of it.
Sachin Chheda (D), Nation Consulting in Wisconsin: “Nobody's talking about Kenosha. They're talking about Covid. They're talking about these coronavirus numbers. And if you are a Republican counting on an in-person vote on Nov. 3, with the coronavirus numbers spiking, the chances of people showing up to vote are lower, especially if your base is older or more likely to get sick. They have to make up a huge deficit on Election Day in the middle of the biggest pandemic the country has seen in 100 years.”




Michigan

Total ballots cast of 8.1 million registered voters: 1.8 million for whom Hawkfish has support scores. Biden: 62 percent. Trump: 38 percent.


Ballots cast by newly registered voters: 139,000. Biden: 63 percent. Trump: 37 percent.


Ballots cast by sporadic voters: 96,000. Biden: 53 percent. Trump 47 percent.


Democratic takeaway: While Michigan does not have hard party registration figures like most other states, internal Democratic modeling gives Biden an edge so far.


Steve Pontoni (D), political consultant: "The number that’s most interesting to me is that as of (Wednesday morning) over 250,000 people have voted who did not vote in 2016 and that’s 23 percent of people who have already voted. And the average age is in the high 50s, and when we model them, it’s a strong Biden constituency from what we can see.”


Republican takeaway: Though the Democratic lead before Election Day is big, Republicans are counting on strong white working-class support for Trump and relatively low Black voter enthusiasm for Biden in urban areas.


John Sellek (R), Harbor Strategic in Michigan: “Polling here shows Biden leading amongst those who voted early so far, yet we are consistently seeing Republican voters expressing slightly higher excitement about voting than Democrats. We are also seeing Republicans conducting voter registration in blue-collar areas that's never been possible before. ... However, if turnout is over 5 million, which would break Michigan's 2008 record, it becomes very difficult to find enough Republicans to keep up at the statewide level.”
 
Last edited:

Corrik

Member
Jan 20, 2018
1,647
1,062
555
Pittsburgh
So, I looked into this some. Michigan doesn't have party registrations on their votes or ballots at all.

The requested and returned ballots on both states have the same exact %s on both. They seem like modeled numbers and the bottom has the disclaimer.

"Party registration is modeled by TargetSmart from multiple commercial sources. "

So, I am not sure exactly what is being used to gather those numbers.

https://targetearly.targetsmart.com/

This is their website.
 
Last edited:

suedester

Banned
Dec 5, 2008
1,355
41
985
You are comparing a heavily moderated site where any wrongthink is banned instantly to an extremely lightly moderated site which will naturally lean more right due to the very fact freely speaking your mind is now considered 'right wing' and the coddled left run away from direct debate.

Many, many of us are the disaffected left. I was with the antiwar left, the left that championed individuality and individual freedom, the left that believed in free speech.

That old left is now considered 'fascist' by the idiots on reset because the left has swung full authoritarian and identitarian. This 'both sides' bullshit is so obviously bullshit you might as well have a photo of it still squeezing out a bulls ass.
Actually i do agree that the different approach to moderation should reduce the echo chambers affect but there seems to be little actual debate here. All i really see is the constant QAnon conspiracy threads and members’ absolute assertion that all the polls are fake and trump will ride to a 300+ Delegate vote victory.
 
  • LOL
  • Like
Reactions: TaySan and Sign

Corrik

Member
Jan 20, 2018
1,647
1,062
555
Pittsburgh
Actually i do agree that the different approach to moderation should reduce the echo chambers affect but there seems to be little actual debate here. All i really see is the constant QAnon conspiracy threads and members’ absolute assertion that all the polls are fake and trump will ride to a 300+ Delegate vote victory.
Biden will win, bud. People here just haven't realized it is already over. They will and their conspiracy theories will fall apart eventually.
 

Dirk Benedict

Gold Member
May 31, 2013
3,671
3,103
800
Fetid, rotted, cursed Isz
On an average, they pointed to her being around 3 % ahead of Trump, which she was in the end in the popular vote. On an average, polls in 2016 didn't show Clinton being 10 points ahead of Trump, like they do today for Biden.

You guys are just setting yourselves up for an incredible disappointment come voting night. It's ok to hope against hope that Trump will win, it's not impossible. But it's incredibly unlikely.

The only poll I'm putting stock into is the one where I cast my vote. I don't give a fuck about projections. Only when it's time to tally votes, so I start to give a shit about numbers.
 

Sign

Member
Jun 4, 2012
1,830
4,043
745
On an average, they pointed to her being around 3 % ahead of Trump, which she was in the end in the popular vote. On an average, polls in 2016 didn't show Clinton being 10 points ahead of Trump, like they do today for Biden.

You guys are just setting yourselves up for an incredible disappointment come voting night. It's ok to hope against hope that Trump will win, it's not impossible. But it's incredibly unlikely.

Every on the ground factor points to a Trump win, and these factors are more accurate and have a better track record than polling.

Enthusiasm. Voter registration.
Trump leading in small dollar donations in swing counties. The sentiment on the question “Who do you think is going to win?” Primary participation. Party approval of the candidate. Etc.

Not only are the polls the odd man out, they’ve already been discredited this election cycle as the early vote was supposed to be lopsided by Dems by 30, 40, 50, 60 points depending on the state. That has not been the case.

I know you are here to low key demoralize, but just “Lol.”
 

Sign

Member
Jun 4, 2012
1,830
4,043
745
Actually i do agree that the different approach to moderation should reduce the echo chambers affect but there seems to be little actual debate here. All i really see is the constant QAnon conspiracy threads and members’ absolute assertion that all the polls are fake and trump will ride to a 300+ Delegate vote victory.

Link to a qanon conspiracy thread.

“Ride to a 300 delegate vote victory.”

Like 2016?
 
Last edited:

joe_zazen

Member
May 2, 2017
4,261
6,808
575
All i really see is the constant QAnon conspiracy threads and members’ absolute assertion that all the polls are fake and trump will ride to a 300+ Delegate vote victory.
are EXACTLY the same. Resetera and Neogaf are both political echo chambers of their respective beliefs, not reality.

exactly the same? echo chamber? Just in this thread we have—>

Biden will win, bud. People here just haven't realized it is already over. They will and their conspiracy theories will fall apart eventually.
In 2016 there were Trump signs all over northern NH and not a Hillary sign in sight. Nobody liked her, and she squeaked out a super slim victory. This year there are almost as many Biden signs as Trump signs. Biden's 10 point lead in the NH polls are accurate, he's toast here.
You can't just completely ignore polls just because they went your way ONCE. 2020 is nothing like 2016 too.
Trump losing the election doesn't mean that nobody likes him or supports him. It means that he lost about 5 % of the supporters he had last time around. That's all that is needed for his 2016 victory to turn into a Biden triumph.
I think this still shows that Biden's numbers are a lot more sturdy than Clinton's. She bounced up and down quite in a bit in the months coming up to the election.
This is exactly what the Resetera people think mate, just swap L/R.

sure it isn’t 50/50, but it is no echo chamber.
 
Last edited:
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: KiNeMz

AmuroChan

Member
Nov 23, 2013
4,074
1,071
775
I hated Trump in 2016. My post history will verify. I love him now.

I am not alone.

Never Trumpers like Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro support him.
Blexit is huge.
Walkaway is huge.
Latino support seems to be huge.
The anti-war old left support Trump.
The anti-woke old left support Trump.

Call me crazy, but the type of people who support Trump are not going Dem this year.

Dems gained a new group for this election though - dead people. They're going to be mailing in their ballots by the tens of millions, all with Biden's name checked.

 
Last edited:

DiscoShark

Banned
Jan 14, 2010
2,877
172
840
Charlotte, NC
Not seeing much in the way of data to support a red NH. If something like that were to happen itd represent a Wipeout in the rust belt.

What I can say though for sure, the American nation will not go quietly. We will have to destroy this monstrosity called the United States, despite the deep emotional connection many members of our nation have for it and its associated symbols. When the left accomplishes its project of turning whites into a minority, the reaction that ensues is going to have them wishing for moderate cucks like Donald Trump.

Of all the things that I could possibly devote my time and energy towards in 2020, America being marginally more brown over the course of a few decades doesnt even chart. Ive never understood why there's this existential fear among some people about about how moving from 50.1% to 49.9% immediately meaning the destruction of everything you hold near and dear.
 

Kreen101

Member
Sep 4, 2019
786
1,575
350
Of all the things that I could possibly devote my time and energy towards in 2020, America being marginally more brown over the course of a few decades doesnt even chart. Ive never understood why there's this existential fear among some people about about how moving from 50.1% to 49.9% immediately meaning the destruction of everything you hold near and dear.

Would you say the same thing about any people in the world -- that is not White -- that would go from being a huge ethnic majority in their native country to, in the space of a few decades, becoming a ever-smaller minority? If you heard of, say, Kurds in their native territory going from 90 % of the population to 50 %, would you think the demographic change that happened served them?

Whites becoming a minority would mean nothing if race didn't mean a thing, just like it was supposed to be back in the 80's. But then identity politics happened, and now race is everything again.

Also, demography is the engine of history. Whoever wins at demography wins at history.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Digital Gex

Banned
Feb 20, 2019
1,041
2,325
500
The problem is a large portion of "minorities" that aren't black americans aren't even supposed to be in the damn country. These people generally mostly don't give to craps about the country, them becoming a possible plurality is a major issue, sure right now many are concentrated in heavy blue areas like California and others, but once they are numerous they can leak out and they can take over politics and control where the leakage goes.
 

showernota

Member
Jun 6, 2020
2,926
8,792
600
So Republicans are racist because white people make up a larger majority than Dems, right? My how the turn tables...
 
Last edited:

DiscoShark

Banned
Jan 14, 2010
2,877
172
840
Charlotte, NC
The problem is a large portion of "minorities" that aren't black americans aren't even supposed to be in the damn country. These people generally mostly don't give to craps about the country, them becoming a possible plurality is a major issue, sure right now many are concentrated in heavy blue areas like California and others, but once they are numerous they can leak out and they can take over politics and control where the leakage goes.

You're operating under this assumption that illegal immigrants are like the barbarians waiting at the gates of Rome. They're just people my dude, they've lived in our communities for decades, they buy our goods, prop up our communities, work in the types of backbreaking manual labor industries that native born Americans don't touch with a 50ft pole. They also tend to engage in less violent crime than native born Americans as well.

Would you say the same thing about any people in the world -- that is not White -- that would go from being a huge ethnic majority in their native country to, in the space of a few decades, becoming a ever-smaller minority? If you heard of, say, Kurds in their native territory going from 90 % of the population to 50 %, would you think the demographic change that happened served them?

Whites becoming a minority would mean nothing if race didn't mean a thing, just like it was supposed to be back in the 80's. But then identity politics happened, and now race is everything again.

Also, demography is the engine of history. Whoever wins at demography wins at history.

Boiling down all of a person's ideological leanings to the color of a person's skin or their "demography" is an extremely black and white way to look at the world. We don't live in some third world country that periodically purges our ethnic minorities. Even today there exist black, hispanic, and asians Republicans that are indistinguishable ideologically from your typical white male Republican coming straight out of the bible belt. The post I was responding to was operating under some anti-american, conferderate style ideology that "cuck" conservative "moderates" like Trump will be what we wish for in a day where "real america" will have to rise up to take back some indescribable something the moment that number shifts from majority to minority-majority. It's nonsense, and it speaks to a deep seated fear that I can only imagine motivated Trump's rise in the first place.

Identity politics isn't some new 20th century invention that we've only seen pop up in the last 40 odd years either, its been a factor since the founding of our country. The adoption of Jim Crow laws was identity politics, the civil war and the fear stoked among southern plantation owners about the vengeful black slave coming after poor southerners families was identity politics, voter "literacy tests" that disenfranchised black voters was identity politics, the new deal legislation excluding predominantly black service industries was identity politics, the GI bill excluding black veterans from owning a house was identity politics. The only difference between the identity politics of today vs the identity politics of yesterday is that the major parties have become much more ideologically sorted - Republicans appeal to a white christian identity, Democrats to a multiracial / lgbtq identity.

This is your identity politics for the right, we just don't call it out for what it is.

 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Thickandblack

Banned
Mar 23, 2018
957
2,183
480
Don’t look at polls. Look at swing states early results. They should skew heavily to Biden because of the mail in push by Dems due to covid. They aren’t. The only place that looks like I expected it to is Pennsylvania, everywhere else is a close, and shocking Republicans lead in places like Michigan and Wisconsin.

There are a lot of assumptions, splicing, and satisficing with polls. Trust the hard data, the ballots.
Yep. What was the latest 74% of Republicans intend to vote in person. With like 28% percent of Democrats. These swing states Democrats need a 2-1 lead in mail at least for it to be close. Most of them are losing which is nuts.
 

Kreen101

Member
Sep 4, 2019
786
1,575
350
The only difference between the identity politics of today vs the identity politics of yesterday is that the major parties have become much more ideologically sorted - Republicans appeal to a white christian identity, Democrats to a multiracial / lgbtq identity.

You're confusing two different things. Of course parties have always had their bases and tried to win by appealing to the categories of voters that they appealed to. That's democracy and has been such since the 18th century? There wouldn't be parties without that reality. And of course those categories of voters -- based on financial interests, moral values, political philosophy, etc. -- sometimes lined up with demographic or geographic criteria.

But identity politics -- as the term is used today -- is something different. It's the idea that the category of voters you belong to should be based on three aspects of your life that are meant to transcend all others: your race (white vs. non-white), your sex and your sexual orientation.

So instead of having, say, a party that represents farmers vs one that repreesents industrialists, or one that represents the religious vs one that represents the irreligious -- which are all differences based on economic activity, moral beliefs, etc. -- you end up with the party for Whites vs the party for non-Whites.

Whether that is progress is up to you to decide.
 

DiscoShark

Banned
Jan 14, 2010
2,877
172
840
Charlotte, NC
You're confusing two different things. Of course parties have always had their bases and tried to win by appealing to the categories of voters that they appealed to. That's democracy and has been such since the 18th century?

Yes, and my argument is that this is indistinguishable from identity politics. The appeal to an identity - whether that identity is "teacher" or "black american" or "gay american" or "christian" or "farmer" is still that, an appeal to a form of identity politics. We don't recognize all of these things as identity because these identities aren't seen to be fundamentally conflicting with other identities a person may hold. The struggle between parties that appeal to "white" or "non-whites" isn't a novel thing within the context of American history either, which is why I brought up my previous examples. There's a reason the confederacy was scared to death of what a Lincoln administration would mean for the future of slavery. There's a reason where, up until Herbert Hoover, black Americans were fiercely loyal to the republican party over the Democrats. It's because they believed the Republican party, while maybe not embracing all of their policy ambitions, weren't actively working towards their disenfranchisement.

It's the same for gay and trans people today - you have a party that fully embraces their rights to work and live and a party that is working to carve out exceptions that would leave them unable to openly express themselves if their boss is a christian or were otherwise fully against their ability to marry eachother. This has a direct impact on a sliver of the populations economic activity. It's not a new or novel thing that a party would seek to align themselves with their cause to secure their votes, it is, as you said, the way "democracy has been since the 18th century."

My contention would be less with why the Democratic party has become the home for minorities and more with why the Republican party has failed to sufficiently appeal to people that aren't increasingly older, whiter, and male.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Kreen101

Member
Sep 4, 2019
786
1,575
350
Yes, and my argument is that this is indistinguishable from identity politics. The appeal to an identity - whether that identity is "teacher" or "black american" or "gay american" or "christian" or "farmer" is still that, an appeal to a form of identity politics.

They're all "identities" in the widest possible meaning of the term, but some of those "identities" have to do with one's profession, values, philosophy or aspirations, while the others have to do with the color of one's skin or the object of one's sexual proclivities.

Can you see the difference between the two following scenarios?

1- I'm a conservative White man, who goes to church and believes in traditional moral values, so I'm voting for the female black leader of my country's socially conservative party, because she represents me.

vs.

2- I'm a conservative White man, who goes to church and believes in traditional moral values, but I'm not voting for my country's socially conservative party, because they chose a black woman as the leader, so she couldn't possibly represent me.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Kreen101

Member
Sep 4, 2019
786
1,575
350
It's the same for gay and trans people today - you have a party that fully embraces their rights to work and live and a party that is working to carve out exceptions that would leave them unable to openly express themselves if their boss is a christian or were otherwise fully against their ability to marry eachother.

If I were "trans", there would be many issues that would matter to me besides my "trans" identity. I'd worry about my taxes, about the unemployment rate, about immigration, about crime, about a thousand things. I'm sure there are transsexual people who would rather vote for the party that promises to slash their taxes than the one that promises to raise them -- and as for the right to join the military, they'd go "who cares, I don't plan on joining the army."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

DiscoShark

Banned
Jan 14, 2010
2,877
172
840
Charlotte, NC
They're all "identities" in the widest possible meaning of the term, but some of those "identities" have to do with one's profession, values, philosophy or aspirations, while the others have to do with the color of one's skin or the object of one's sexual proclivities.

Can you see the difference between the two following scenarios?

1- I'm a conservative White man, who goes to church and believes in traditional moral values, so I'm voting for the female black leader of my country's socially conservative party, because she represents me.

vs.

2- I'm a conservative White man, who goes to church and believes in traditional moral values, but I'm not voting for my country's socially conservative party, because they chose a black woman as the leader, so she couldn't possibly represent me.

I think the disconnect we're having is the idea that a racial, sexual, or gender identity can meaningfully impact one's economic outlook. If I'm a gay man before the recent supreme court decision I live in an environment where everything from my marriage (and everything related to the marriage like tax exemptions, or hospital stays, or custody of children, or employment) are directly impacted by my identity, and the way various political institutions interact with my identity. If a political party decides to fight for my causes and the other decides to enforce "traditional values" then that identity has a very real and meaningful impact to my ability to interact with the world around me. You mentioned before that a key distinction between the identities I mentioned was that they effected economic activity - they do.


If I were "trans", there would be many issues that would matter to me besides my "trans" identity. I'd worry about my taxes, about the unemployment rate, about immigration, about crime, about a thousand things. I'm sure there are transsexual people who would rather vote for the party that promises to slash their taxes than the one that promises to raise them -- and as for the right to join the military, they'd go "who cares, I don't plan on joining the army."

I think the army example is a fantastic one, it speaks to why these identities "matter" in an environment where one's career and livelihood are threatened, why there's an incentive structure to organizing as the "trans vote" when there's a force in your society acting against your own economic achievement. So yes, you care about taxes and the unemployment rate and immigration and crime - but you also care about your ability to personally achieve your own economic ends, including by serving your country. It's not JUST that the Democrats are making themselves the party of minorities, it's that they're pushing for policies that directly impact their economic prosperity and legitimacy in the workplace.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Digital Gex

Banned
Feb 20, 2019
1,041
2,325
500
prop up our communities,

No they don't.

work in the types of backbreaking manual labor industries that native born Americans don't touch with a 50ft pole.

Yeah they do, their called Black people, some even had their own businesses in those areas, gone due to being swapped out for cheap labor. Hence why you never seen people bring up Black people in an "illegals do jobs American don't do" argument.

Even with white working class Americans it's still false, they did hard labor, they worked and owned construction, paint, and plumbing businesses, a garbage myth without any evidence brought up by crazy lunatics on the left because THEY are lazy or want to get an irrelevant degree in gender studies.
 

Tygeezy

Member
Sep 28, 2018
1,078
1,065
465
You are comparing a heavily moderated site where any wrongthink is banned instantly to an extremely lightly moderated site which will naturally lean more right due to the very fact freely speaking your mind is now considered 'right wing' and the coddled left run away from direct debate.

Many, many of us are the disaffected left. I was with the antiwar left, the left that championed individuality and individual freedom, the left that believed in free speech.

That old left is now considered 'fascist' by the idiots on reset because the left has swung full authoritarian and identitarian. This 'both sides' bullshit is so obviously bullshit you might as well have a photo of it still squeezing out a bulls ass.
Bingo. I'm exactly the same way. I voted for Hillary, and Obama twice. The cry baby overreaction to trump and woke critical race theory has pushed me to vote trump. I cant vote democrat in its current state of wokeness.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
8,387
7,538
1,710
You know, I just fucking posted that many of us here are politically homeless, and someone usually comes in and wonders "How GAF became an alt-right paradise" when most of us are former Democrats.

Within minutes someone strolls in, and does exactly that. Unbelievable.

For the record, I didn't vote in 2016(for President)for the first time in my life, but this year, Trump all the way.
 

appaws

Banned
Jan 31, 2008
3,279
2,484
1,335
Taylorsville, Ky!
Of all the things that I could possibly devote my time and energy towards in 2020, America being marginally more brown over the course of a few decades doesnt even chart. Ive never understood why there's this existential fear among some people about about how moving from 50.1% to 49.9% immediately meaning the destruction of everything you hold near and dear.

That is not what has happened though. The American nation has gone from 90% of the population to 69% and will go to a minority. All within a few generations. Hart-Cellar (and Reagan's Amnesty later) were passed through Congress with the American nation being lied to about what they meant. We never agreed to allow the composition of our polity to change. We never agreed to turn our Republic over to foreigners.

The fear is because the people make a country what it is. Can you honestly say that you think the United States would have existed, or been prosperous, or a world power, had it been founded by Zulus instead of Europeans? (You could say it but you would be lying)
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
9,764
22,628
750
I think in this election you can completely ignore polls.

That doesn't mean Trump is going to win, it means that the structural problems that come with polling, and with using polling to build models like Nate Copper, have finally done the industry in. They don't work anymore. There are too many issues. The media wants and needs these polls because they use them to build a narrative, usually a false one. Polling isn't what it used to be.

And the truth is that polls have failed quite a bit in the past 2 decades, albeit in different ways. They failed in 2000, 2004, and 2016. Hmm, what do all those elections have in common I wonder?
This. The sheer lack of humility from people like Silver tells you everything you need to know. The idea that the public might be punking the pollsters for a variety of reasons never occurs to him to the degree to question his cement predictions. I don’t know for sure if that’s what’s happening, but neither does Silver. I’ll laugh my ass off if he ends up eating a bag of dicks and discredits himself further next week.
 
Last edited:
Jul 24, 2018
109
92
225
are people of the view that state polling is going to be out by 5 points again? the last time they were out by that much was in 1996. the pollsters should just quit if that happens, whichever way that breaks out.wouldn't count anything out based on the past 4 years though.
 

joe_zazen

Member
May 2, 2017
4,261
6,808
575
.
are people of the view that state polling is going to be out by 5 points again? the last time they were out by that much was in 1996. the pollsters should just quit if that happens, whichever way that breaks out.wouldn't count anything out based on the past 4 years though.

pollsters face no consequences for being wrong. No one got fired in 2016.
 
Jul 24, 2018
109
92
225
.


pollsters face no consequences for being wrong. No one got fired in 2016.

who would do the firing though in this instance? I guess news organisations/universities could sever ties with the polling firms they hired.


things were better in 2018 as well as in the off year elections though, iirc. two presidential elections in a row and they will not be trusted by anybody though, of course, even with the caveat of things being wrong due to postal disruption as a result of covid, high volumes of postal votes, the restructuring of the postal service etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: joe_zazen

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,594
3,424
515
On an average, they pointed to her being around 3 % ahead of Trump, which she was in the end in the popular vote. On an average, polls in 2016 didn't show Clinton being 10 points ahead of Trump, like they do today for Biden.

You guys are just setting yourselves up for an incredible disappointment come voting night. It's ok to hope against hope that Trump will win, it's not impossible. But it's incredibly unlikely.
Even the Biden campaign is saying not to believe the polls that the race is far closer and they could still lose*(aka, they're losing but won't disclose it).

One day california will be investigated and their massive voter fraud exposed. Maybe then they can start to heal.
You're operating under this assumption that illegal immigrants are like the barbarians waiting at the gates of Rome. They're just people my dude, they've lived in our communities for decades, they buy our goods, prop up our communities, work in the types of backbreaking manual labor industries that native born Americans don't touch with a 50ft pole.
You should read IQ and the wealth of nations.
This brings me to another point. In America it is an assumption that blacks and Hispanics do badly because society will not let anyone who is not white get ahead. This is odd since small minorities such as Jews, Chinese, Koreans, Lebanese, and Indians all do better than whites on average. In fact the idea that minorities must do badly is disproved all over the world where small minorities such as Chinese in southeast Asia, the Jews in Russia, Indians in Kenya are dramatically more wealthy than the local indigenous people even tho’ the locals often despise, exclude, and even attack these small minorities in ways that go far beyond anything in America.-kaunas,sciforum

They also tend to engage in less violent crime than native born Americans as well.
According to the fake mainstream media. The IQ crime correlations proven time and again don't go away, and on average their IQ is lower. Violent crime also correlates with IQ.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: appaws

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
5,950
7,148
695
New Hampshire is a in play like Texas is in play. Meaning it's not, it's just a fun thought experiment.
 

gunslikewhoa

Member
Mar 3, 2014
3,469
3,509
725
Actually i do agree that the different approach to moderation should reduce the echo chambers affect but there seems to be little actual debate here. All i really see is the constant QAnon conspiracy threads and members’ absolute assertion that all the polls are fake and trump will ride to a 300+ Delegate vote victory.

How many QAnon threads do you see on the first, I don't know, ten pages of threads here?