• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Biden losing in swing states

Without a "Party" some progressives would vote for Sanders, some for Ralph Nader, some for Elizabeth Warren, some for Newsom, some for Manchin, some for Hilary again; and yes many of us would vote for Biden. Elections here are "first past the post" so the Republican Party -- since they wouldn't be stupid enough to dissolve their party -- would win overwhelmingly even if their share were small.

That's why progressives do and should adhere to a "Party."

I honestly did not realize that this was so difficult to understand.
 
So what? Doesn't stop me from wanting it. And it certainly doesn't stop me from acknowledging that both parties are shit. One is bullshit, the other is horseshit, but they're both shit.
If you still think the South Park "both sides" argument is still relevant in 2023 you have paid fuck all attention in recent history. One side is mildly shit, the other is completely shit laced with anthrax and is highly radioactive. It really isn't a competition anymore.
 
What exactly do you think "my side" is?
With respect, you're exactly on the side that thinks that both sides try to throw elections!
Would you care to support your assumption in some fashion? Or have you decided that what you imagine me to believe must be truth because it's in your brain?
This is a damaging belief that must be put in its place. Trump is not an idiot. He's actually very crafty, which makes him dangerous. He lost the 2020 election. He knew it 100%. So rather than accept, he and his minions tried to throw the election. He tried to push the election in an alternate path: to the states. Since the republicans controlled most state houses, he would have been reelected. He wanted to change our election process to the process that would most benefit him. Do you not see the danger of this? How can a democracy surive if the process was changed every election; AFTER the election! I don't know if our current form of government would have survived this. This is what the fake electors was about. This is directly against the constitution and is a crime. He should be in jail.
Why on earth do you imagine - IMAGINE - that I disagree?
?? I'm not a mind reader! How do I know what you think? I assume that if you are a reasonable person and that you agree with me that attempting to change the election process after an election is criminal. I don't think that you're a Trumper. But you tell me what you think. My direct response to you was countering your earlier claim that both parties are anti-democratic. I don't agree.
 
Trump is still the head of the GOP. They selected a Christian Nationalist to head up the House of Representatives. Tuberville is hurting the military for sociopolitical reason. But both sides are just as bad. Got it.
 
Okay, so if you acknowledge that both parties serve only their own interests, not the interests of the citizens... Why is it that you consistently denigrate only one of those parties? What makes the self-serving power-seeking grift of one party more palatable to you?
Because only one contingent is overtly gunning for my civil rights. Dumb question.
Both contingents are actively gunning for my civil rights. Different rights being targeted by each, but both of them are chipping away at my rights.
Interesting take. What rights of yours is the Democratic party chipping away at?
Right to single sex spaces and services. Right to refuse to let strange males see me naked against my will. Right to the expectation of visual privacy from males without my express consent. Right to free speech. Right to freedom of believe and expression of that belief when doing so does not result in direct harm to another person.
 
Okay, so if you acknowledge that both parties serve only their own interests, not the interests of the citizens... Why is it that you consistently denigrate only one of those parties? What makes the self-serving power-seeking grift of one party more palatable to you?
Because only one contingent is overtly gunning for my civil rights. Dumb question.
Both contingents are actively gunning for my civil rights. Different rights being targeted by each, but both of them are chipping away at my rights.
Interesting take. What rights of yours is the Democratic party chipping away at?
Right to single sex spaces and services. Right to refuse to let strange males see me naked against my will. Right to the expectation of visual privacy from males without my express consent. Right to free speech. Right to freedom of believe and expression of that belief when doing so does not result in direct harm to another person.
What Democratic policies would infringe on any of those rights?
 
What Democratic policies would infringe on any of those rights?
There are men who feel entitled to use the women only restroom spaces. Men who think they're entitled to compete in the women's sports division.

Call them Democrat or not, but don't tell me that they don't exist.
Tom
 
So what? Doesn't stop me from wanting it. And it certainly doesn't stop me from acknowledging that both parties are shit. One is bullshit, the other is horseshit, but they're both shit.
If you still think the South Park "both sides" argument is still relevant in 2023 you have paid fuck all attention in recent history. One side is mildly shit, the other is completely shit laced with anthrax and is highly radioactive. It really isn't a competition anymore.
I don't think you understand just how serious this is. Right now, one of these two parties is saying that - if a kid sees a show on Disney + that has a gay character and that kid realizes "hey, I kinda identify with this animated bunch of pixels and I think maybe that's what's been missing in my life and I want to be like that character" then that's okay and should be encouraged and supported.

The other party is saying that this is horribly wrong, will lead to pedophilia, debauchery, and if something is not done to destroy this dangerous trend it will lead to the fall of Western Christian civilization and the literal apocalypse as foretold by the last book of the Bible.

These two things are exactly the same. I don't know how you can't see it.
 
So what? Doesn't stop me from wanting it. And it certainly doesn't stop me from acknowledging that both parties are shit. One is bullshit, the other is horseshit, but they're both shit.
If you still think the South Park "both sides" argument is still relevant in 2023 you have paid fuck all attention in recent history. One side is mildly shit, the other is completely shit laced with anthrax and is highly radioactive. It really isn't a competition anymore.
I don't think you understand just how serious this is. Right now, one of these two parties is saying that - if a kid sees a show on Disney + that has a gay character and that kid realizes "hey, I kinda identify with this animated bunch of pixels and I think maybe that's what's been missing in my life and I want to be like that character" then that's okay and should be encouraged and supported.

The other party is saying that this is horribly wrong, will lead to pedophilia, debauchery, and if something is not done to destroy this dangerous trend it will lead to the fall of Western Christian civilization and the literal apocalypse as foretold by the last book of the Bible.

These two things are exactly the same. I don't know how you can't see it.
I guess I'm just too fucking stupid to realise the 4-D chess bullshit that is happening in front of me. Maybe if I donate more money I'll figure it out?


I don't advocate currency as a deciding factor for elections - I genuinely think the amount of money in US elections is physically repulsive.
 
Right to single sex spaces and services. Right to refuse to let strange males see me naked against my will. Right to the expectation of visual privacy from males without my express consent. Right to free speech. Right to freedom of believe and expression of that belief when doing so does not result in direct harm to another person.
Umm....what? Who is taking that away from you, and how?

Unless you are a man "Emily" let me tell you what a public toilet actually is. A piece of metal on a wall with something that looks like bath soap at the bottom and if you are lucky one, (possibly two) holes in the ground. You are already receiving preferential treatment when it comes to the "privacy in bathrooms" scenario. You have a sofa in some of your bathrooms, I've heard the stories. So calm down about your "privacy in bathrooms".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What Democratic policies would infringe on any of those rights?
There are men who feel entitled to use the women only restroom spaces. Men who think they're entitled to compete in the women's sports division.

Call them Democrat or not, but don't tell me that they don't exist.
Tom
Not an honest answer to the question, though, is it? I can tell you in very specific terms how the far right is dismantling the civil rights of certain target groups, at least one of which you yourself belong to. Concretely, viciously, permanently.
 
Omigod, it's those damn transgendered again. You're right. They're going to bring down the republic. They're the floodtide of destruction that must, must be dealt with. I want all of you in the sound of my v-- well, all of you who actually show up on this small-town website and read this little post -- I want you all to go to your window, open it up and scream, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!!" (Only do it in all caps.) "The transgendered are coming, and you idiots don't see it!! They're going to tear down our country unless we fight like hell!" And just go on like that. Eventually, the police may do a wellness check and the local Republicans may contact you.
Honest to god, there are no other problems facing us that are even remotely as dire as the transgendered. Name one. I dare you. Because there are none. The transgendered... THE TRANSGENDERRRRRRED. I won't sleep tonight.
 

Republican voters were oversampled in these polls​

The word “oversampled” doesn’t appear in either Shane Goldmacher’s writeup of the poll results or Nate Cohn’s writeup. However, if you open the actual dataset, look through it, and read the endnotes, a key fact should become immediately apparent: Republican voters were oversampled in these polls.

It’s irresponsible of the NYT to not state this upfront in all of its coverage. This is an important design choice that they made, and it ought to be explained.

The New York Times and its partners had to do a bunch of weighting because of their decision to do oversampling. Here is their explanation, which is only in the endnotes, not in any of the stories they’ve written so far about the poll. It’s long:

Weighting — registered voters
The survey was weighted by The Times using the R survey package in multiple steps to account for the oversample of Republican voters.
First, the samples were adjusted for unequal probability of selection by stratum.
Second, the six state samples were weighted separately to match voter file-based parameters for the characteristics of registered voters by state.
The following targets were used:
  • Party (party registration if available, else classification based on a model of vote choice in prior Times/Siena polls)
  • Age (Self-reported age, or voter file age if the respondent refuses)
  • Gender (L2 data)
  • Race or ethnicity (L2 model)
  • Education (four categories of self-reported education, weighted to match NYT-based targets derived from Times/Siena polls, census data and the L2 voter file)
  • Marital status (L2 model)
  • Home ownership (L2 model)
  • State regions (NYT classifications by county or city)
  • Turnout history (NYT classifications based on L2 data)
  • Vote method in the 2020 elections (NYT classifications based on L2 data)
  • Census block group density (A.C.S. 5‑Year Census Block Group data)
  • City type (Nevada only, added based on a post-hoc analysis of the difference between the weighted sample and voter file parameters. The weight had no meaningful effect on the topline result.)
  • Census tract educational attainment (Georgia only, added based on a post-hoc analysis of the difference between the weighted sample and voter file parameters. The weight had no meaningful effect on the topline result.)
Finally, the six state samples were balanced to each represent one-sixth of the sum of the weights.
Weighting — likely electorate
The survey was weighted by The Times using the R survey package in multiple steps to account for the oversample of Republican voters.
First, the samples were adjusted for unequal probability of selection by stratum.
Second, the first-stage weight was adjusted to account for the probability that a registrant would vote in the 2024 election, based on a model of turnout in the 2020 election.
Third, the six state samples were weighted separately to match targets for the composition of the likely electorate. The targets for the composition of the likely electorate were derived by aggregating the individual-level turnout estimates described in the previous step for registrants on the L2 voter file. The categories used in weighting were the same as those previously mentioned for registered voters.
Fourth, the initial likely electorate weight was adjusted to incorporate self-reported vote intention. The final probability that a registrant would vote in the 2024 election was four-fifths based on their ex ante modeled turnout score and one-fifth based on their self-reported intention, based on prior Times/Siena polls, including a penalty to account for the tendency of survey respondents to turn out at higher rates than nonrespondents. The final likely electorate weight was equal to the modeled electorate rake weight, multiplied by the final turnout probability and divided by the ex ante modeled turnout probability.
Finally, the six state samples were balanced to each represent one-sixth of the sum of the weights.
 
Do you guys and gals read alternet.org? It's VERY left-wing, but is still a good starting point for learning what's really happening in American politics. Anyway I clicked there with my smart-phone today and saw an Opinion piece by D. Earl Stephens titled
The Death of the New York Times
He has several complaints about the N.Y. Times, mainly that it gives space to "both sides" -- the Liars as well as the Rational thinkers. But he is especially unhappy about the biased poll ZiprHead just reported on. (I didn't try to study the NYT disclaimer to see if their "corrections" make sense.) Here are the first few paragraphs of Stephens' opinion:

The Death of the New York Times said:
I believe they are doing this because they have lost their way and their morals, and have carefully dug out a tributary that flows from the obscene river of cash that is currently poisoning our politics, and runs directly into the bottomless pockets of the broken decision-makers whose fat asses are comfortably stuffed in the chairs of their front offices.

Unrest and instability might be bad for our Democracy, but they are damn good for business at The New York Times.

I take no pride in writing what I believe is this necessary piece.

I have been a steady reader of the “Gray Lady” for most of my life. Growing up in New Jersey, I actually aspired to work at the place as a starry-eyed kid, who pedaled his bike around delivering newspapers after school each day.

Weirdness. The 1st, 3rd and 4th time I clicked on the article from my laptop I get the "Exclusive ... $49, renews at $69/yr" pay-wall message and am unable to read the article. But the 2nd time I clicked there I DID get in. And I ALWAYS am allowed to read the article from my smart-phone. What gives?
 
Do you guys and gals read alternet.org? It's VERY left-wing, but is still a good starting point for learning what's really happening in American politics. Anyway I clicked there with my smart-phone today and saw an Opinion piece by D. Earl Stephens titled
The problem with alternet.org is there is no quality control. You can't trust that any given piece is good unless you've seen enough by that author previously.
 
Do you guys and gals read alternet.org? It's VERY left-wing, but is still a good starting point for learning what's really happening in American politics. Anyway I clicked there with my smart-phone today and saw an Opinion piece by D. Earl Stephens titled
The problem with alternet.org is there is no quality control. You can't trust that any given piece is good unless you've seen enough by that author previously.
While I don't know about that, Media Bias Fact Check does not rate them highly.
 
Many of the Alternet stories begin with links to the same story told by a more respected outlet. Even if not, you can always Google to fact-check the Alternet account.

BUT Alternet is a good site to find out about right-wing mischief and malfeasance in the first place. As Stephens points out in the opinion piece I quoted, mainstream media has different motives and will omit or bury some of these stories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLD
Back
Top Bottom