Racism And Kamala Harris

[blastula]

I forgot there was a politician by that name. So Trump was only referring to black politicians.

Of course, you were only thinking of the legendary basketball player, Byron Donalds. A totally non-racist mistake.

 

[Rhea]

I forgot there was a politician by that name. So Trump was only referring to black politicians.

Of course, you were only thinking of the legendary basketball player, Byron Donalds. A totally non-racist mistake.

Wel, in his defense, it was obvious as a supernova that Trump was talking about black npeople, so in context it was correct to think of Black people with that name.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Of course she's racist. She's a Democrat.

Do you have any support for this bare (barren) assertion?

I need to support the claim that she's a Democrat? She's their nominee for Loki's sake!

 

[Rhea]

Of course she's racist. She's a Democrat.

Do you have any support for this bare (barren) assertion?

I need to support the claim that she's a Democrat? She's their nominee for Loki's sake!

Surely you knew he was asking about the racism. Surely you are smart enough to easily and effortlessly detect that.
So what is the purpose of the transparent dodge? It’s not like anyone pays you for clicks.

 

[TomC]

Of course she's racist. She's a Democrat.

Do you have any support for this bare (barren) assertion?

I need to support the claim that she's a Democrat? She's their nominee for Loki's sake!

Ha ha ha
You really think that is an honest response to pood's question?
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Of course she's racist. She's a Democrat.

Do you have any support for this bare (barren) assertion?

I need to support the claim that she's a Democrat? She's their nominee for Loki's sake!

Ha ha ha
You really think that is an honest response to pood's question?
Tom

According to JH, it's all you little people are entitled to.

 

[Copernicus]

I just looked up "Byron Donalds" on the internet, and the basketball star

Of course she's racist. She's a Democrat.

Do you have any support for this bare (barren) assertion?

I need to support the claim that she's a Democrat? She's their nominee for Loki's sake!

Ha ha ha
You really think that is an honest response to pood's question?
Tom

If he wanted to respond to questions honestly, it would be possible to have a real conversation with him. What you get instead is an evasive non-response followed ad nauseam claims that he has already responded satisfactorily and that his response was ignored. You can also answer his questions directly, but he'll keep complaining that you did not answer them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The quotes in the last three posts are seriously FUBAR. Words have been put in my mouth that I didn't say.

You can always use the “report” function to ask moderators to fix quote attribution tags. Just give us the info we need to find it, and we can do our best. The quote tags are easy to mess up, unfortunately, when the user is toggled in the wysiwyg mode, resulting in misattributes.

I see two mis-quotes, and I’ve fixed them. Please let me know where the others are by reporting the posts.

Second this. If you're trying to snip quoted material it's easy to mess up and if you do mess up the only easy fix is ^z. Anything else you'll have to switch over to the BBcode editor. It is not trustworthy when your snip crosses quote boundaries!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Almost every so called independent I've ever known, has almost always or always voted for one party. So, when someone tells me they are an independent, I'm kind of skeptical. I'm not saying they are bad people. I'm saying they aren't being completely honest with themselves, as most tend to vote for the same party but they don't like the label, I guess. Maybe there are some exceptions, but considering how different the two parties are, especially these days, it's hard to believe anyone who claims to be a true independent. My mother was a Democrat imo. She just didn't like being associated with a label.

Disagree. Voting for the lesser evil doesn't mean you like the party, just that you think they aren't as bad as the other guys. I don't like the Democrats but I loathe and fear the modern Republicans.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My mother was a Democrat imo. She just didn't like being associated with a label.

My husband is a registered Republican. He says he just does not feel like the current Republicans really represent the party values. So he votes for Democrats instead. I asked him when was the last tinme a Republican represented the party values. He replied, “well, candidly, there has not been one yet, since I started voting.” Which was almost 50 years ago.

So, yeah. Doesn’t want to be associated with the label, but they represent his values better than the Republican party whose label he does wear.

People have internal reasons…

Look up "Rockerfeller Republican". As far as I can tell extinct at the level of running for office.

 

[lpetrich]

The two major parties are basically Frankenstein coalitions, with several different group operating under the same political umbrella. I wonder if part of the problem is that people don't like the label because it associates them with parts of the base elements that they have fundamental disagreements with--for example, libertarians who oppose right wing antiabortion Christians but support unregulated gun ownership and tax cuts for large federal social services programs.

That's why proportional representation is good: it will enable these awkward coalitions to break apart.

 

[lpetrich]

DutchModerate ✝ on X: "I think America basically has 8 political factions right now, 4 Democratic and 4 Republican. ..:" / X

I think America basically has 8 political factions right now, 4 Democratic and 4 Republican. Nearly every politician is able to be paced within this system somewhere, tho some maybe more tricky to place than others. Here's a thread explaining each faction:

I've seen a 3-faction-each split, so this is more fine-grained.

 

[lpetrich]

There's basically four types of Democrats:
Socialist Democrats: socially left, fiscally left
New Deal Democrats: socially center-left, fiscally left
Liberal Democrats: socially (center-)left, fiscally center-left
Blue Dog Democrats : socially center-left, fiscally center(-left)

Socialist Democrats are very progressive on just about every issue. They're more pro-Gaza, support a green New Deal, they're protectionist and want higher taxes on the rich. They distrust big business and are big supporters of unions

They're usually higher educated and located in cities/college towns. They're plurality White, but also have some support among urban Hispanics and Blacks. Sanders, Warren, AOC, Porter, Frost, Merkley, Baldwin, Bowman, Bush, Omar, Pressley, are all part of this group.

New Deal Democrats are quite similar to Socialist Dems on fiscal issues (M4A, Social Security expansion, etc.), but don't have the same positioning on issues like Gaza and are more compromising on social issues, like trans issues or immigration.

They're usually not as highly educated as the Socialists and you'll find them more in suburban areas, midsized towns and even rural areas. They're majority-minority and have the highest support among Hispanics, Blacks and Native Americans.

Big names include Raphael Warnock, Jim Clyburn, Matt Cartwright, Bennie Thompson, Bob Casey, Sherrod Brown, John Fetterman and John Tester

Liberal Democrats are staunchly progressive on social issues, just like Socialists, but are more hesitant towards unions and more pro-business. They're also more willing to consider other options than M4A. They're heavy Ukraine supporters and pro-free trade.

They tend to be quite highly educated, quite suburban and quite rich. Asian Americans are overrepresented in this group as well as Jewish Democrats. Big names include Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Adam Schiff, Grace Meng, Gretchen Whitmer, Amy Klobuchar, Chris Murphy and Chuck Schumer

Blue Dog Dems are very moderate Democrats who are similar to Liberal Dems, but want more tax cuts, are more pro-law enforcement, anti-immigration and pro-gun. They're also pro-Ukraine, very pro-Israel and anti-M4A.

They're similar in demographics to Liberal Dems, but are slightly less highly educated and less wealthy. You'll find them more in rural areas too. Prominent examples include: Mary Peltola, Jared Golden, MGP, Joe Manchin, Angus King, Mark Warner, Josh Shapiro and Michael Bloomberg

 

[lpetrich]

I'll come back for the Republican factions tomorrow and I'll have a map of all Governors, Senators and Representatives too, stay tuned!

Hello everyone and welcome back everyone to part 2 of this thread! It blew up way more than I expected, so I couldn’t respond to everyone yet. Hence, I’ll describe the 4 Republican factions and after that I’ll go into some general criticisms/FAQ that have arisen based on part 1.

Oh yeah, and the maps are coming too, but please bear with me!

 

[lpetrich]

Just like Democrats, Republicans also have 4 major factions:
Christian Nationalist Republicans: socially right, fiscally (center-)right
Populist Republicans: socially (center-)right, fiscally center(-right)
Governance Republicans: socially center-right, fiscally (center-)right
Mainstreet Republicans: socially center(-right), fiscally center-right

Christian Nationalists are staunch MAGA Republicans, who have a Christian fundamentalist mixed with minarchist view on governance/policy. They're the most fanatic group, being very anti-abortion, anti-trans, anti-immigration, pro-guns, anti-gay marriage and very pro-Israel.

They supported repealing the ACA and replace it with a more market-based system. They support limited and targeted tariffs on China, but otherwise tend to be generally in favor of free trade. They're very anti-union and anti-interventionism, unless it deals with Iran.

Demographically, Christian Nationalists are slightly lower educated than average and about average on income/wealth. They’re heavily white and most subscribe to/sympathize with the Evangelical Christian movement.

They live mostly in the suburbs of small-to-midsize towns, in exurban areas and in rural areas in the South, Mountain West and Midwest. Ron DeSantis, Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, Kristi Noem, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Marjorie Taylor Greene are part of this group.

Populist Republicans are big MAGA supporters, just like the Christian Nationalists, as they are anti-immigration, anti-trans and pro-guns. Where they differ, is on fiscal issues. Populists tend to be okay with unions, support social security and strong protectionist measures.

They're also not as opposed to gay marriage or marijuana legalization, and they’re more supportive of the ACA. They advocate for a more restricted foreign policy, especially on Ukraine and in the Middle East, but they do support Israel.

You’ll find populist Republicans mostly in suburbs and exurban/rural areas around old industrial towns in the Midwest and the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic. They’re usually less educated and earn less than average, most often working in low-level white collar and in blue collar jobs.

Many are Obama-Trump voters and have only recently become loyal to the GOP. They’re quite small in size, for now, but are growing in numbers, also among some urban minority voters who are switching to the GOP.

JD Vance, Josh Hawley, Jim Justice, John Kennedy, Mary Miller, Lauren Boebert and Kat Cammack are among this faction.

Governance Republicans are the remnants of Reagan/Bush era Republican politics. They're massive hawks on defense spending and tend to support interventionist actions. They're in favor of Ukraine support and massively pro-Israel.

They opposed the ACA and were massive advocates of slashing social security and Medicaid. They're more open to bipartisan action and they're not as active in pushing radical anti-abortion and anti-LGBT measures.

They’re also more reluctant of Trumpism and some of its more radical proposal/policies, but they won’t air those concerns due to a fear of being primaried/ostracized. Sound fiscal and foreign policy is their primary concern, even if they support socially conservative policies.

Governance Republicans are usually slight higher educated and more wealthy than average. They’re most prominent in large metro suburbs and exurbs, but you can find them in Plains/Midwestern rural areas too.

George W. Bush, Mitch McConnell, Nikki Haley, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, John Thune, Doug Burgum, Brian Kemp, Glenn Youngkin and Mike DeWine are all part of this group.

Mainstreet Republicans are the most moderate/liberal of all Republican factions. They're fiscally conservative, but they're not minarchist and tend to support some government spending, especially for military spending and supporting Ukraine and Israel.

They're in favor of free trade and are the most sceptical of tariffs. They tend to be sceptical about abortion bans, most are supporting some exceptions. On healthcare, they supported replacing ACA, but not with the Trump proposal.

They're also likely to support/tolerate gay marriage and the scientific consensus on climate change. They’re most critical of Trump, often voting with (moderate) Democrats on issues. Some voted to impeach him for Jan. 6th, while others try to stay more under the radar.

They are a small and shrinking group, as most of their supporters either switched party allegiance or started supporting Trumpism. Demographically, they’re quite rich, less religious, ethnically more diverse and higher educated than most Republicans.

They’re still relatively strong in the (Mountain) West, parts of the Midwest, and in the Northeast. There you’ll find them most often in (inner-city) wealthy suburbs of larger metros and in ski resorts/college towns.

Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Phil Scott, John Bolton, Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, Brian Fitzpatrick, Don Bacon and Chris Christie are all in this group.
[/quoe]

 

[lpetrich]

Now I want to explain this classification a bit more and deal with some criticisms/FAQ about it. First of all, why this classification? Well, I designed this mostly for fun and because I think it can create clarity around voter coalitions and their diverse policy preferences.

I also think this can form a basis for imagining what a multiparty America could look like in broad strokes, as I see many misguided takes on Twitter/Reddit about this that focus on ethnicity or religion way more than I think plausible.

But: please don’t take this too seriously/personally, it’s just a thought experiment/model!!!

One would need proportional representation to have more than two major parties, but I agree that this is an interesting thought experiment.

Second, it should be nothing new to anyone with a political interest that the two American parties appeal to this coalition of voters with different policy preferences and backgrounds, even if the Trump era has brought about more intraparty unity.

That’s why these factions are in no way similar to political parties, as the political dynamics are entirely different in a multiparty democracy. I rather like to think about these as “different schools of thought” within the Democratic and Republican coalitions.

It’s important to realize that these schools of thought individually have limited influence over the larger party platform, which is why in a true multiparty America, the differences among the factions will be larger than they currently are.

There is a lot of compromise involved, say, between Socialist and Blue Dog Dems on policy. Sometimes that is explicit, like when Manchin/Sinema negotiated the Infrastructure Bill, but with Republicans, this is gradual/under the surface, as they deal with Trump's personal wishes.

Joe Manchin I could half-understand, but Kyrsten Sinema I consider disgusting, a disgrace, a traitor.

 

[lpetrich]

Third, that’s why it can be tricky at times to categorize individual politicians into the faction they most align with. See, politicians sometimes take on positions they don’t really agree with in order to appeal to a wide voter base/win a primary.

This means that there is a broad mainstream of policies that are generally accepted by most candidates, i.e. most Democrats supporting abortion, most Republicans wanting to ban it.

Classifying individual politicians therefore requires diving into their specific voting dissents, policy preferences and public statements, sometimes even in the nitty-gritty of political issues.

This holds especially true when talking about Senators, Governors, and even more so, Presidents. They tend to take a mix of 2-3 factions’ policy preferences in order to have a chance at winning over all of the voters that support them in an election.

There are many Republicans, for example, who are a mix of Governance/Christian Nationalist, creating an image of being somewhere in the middle of them. Same goes for many Dems who can be perceived as on the Liberal/New Deal border.

Diving into detail can then usually give an indication of what side is slightly closer to their views, but it’s far from an absolute call.

Therefore, when I publish the maps at the end of this thread that show my estimate of each elected official in Congress and the Governors, please note that that is just an estimation and not a definitive claim.

There can be good arguments for a different classification of that specific politician. I looked at voting history/Wikipedia articles/news articles and I tried to be as fair/accurate as I could.

That can be systematized by doing some computerized data mining, by looking for patterns in Congressmembers' votes. Principal components analysis is a common technique, and one can use it to find the longest axes of variation of the members' votes.

 

[lpetrich]

Fourth, that further explains why you as a mainstream Democrat/Republican can feel like none or all of them are closest to your views. You probably have a slight bias, likely unbeknownst to you, to a certain faction.

The two-party-system tries to eliminate this factional allegiance as much as possible tho, repressing diverse thought within and across political parties. This makes it so that you’re more likely to support a coalition of policy preferences rather than those of a singular faction

Which shows how Procrustean two-party systems are, forcing everybody into one or the other of two molds. Proportional representation offers a chance to end Procrustes's twin bed.

Fifth, some people asked why I didn’t include a separate libertarian faction. Well, for two reasons: first, I wanted to focus on the major parties as 95-98 percent of people vote for them. Libertarians are just a very fringe group.

Secondly, they can often identify with one of the major party factions. Right-leaning libertarians might support the Christian Nationalist, Governance or even Mainstreet Republicans as they tend to have the most minarchist view of government in the fiscal sense.

Left-leaning libertarians can find agreement with Liberals and Blue Dogs on most social/cultural issues. Because of this, I don’t think it warrants a separate faction.

Libertarians can be very loud online, but they don't seem to have translated that loudness into broader support for their positions and candidates. The Libertarian Party has the same problems as the Green Party: too much focus on the Presidency, no attempt to build a local party base.

Proportional representation would be good for the Libertarian Party, to show how much support it really has.

 

[lpetrich]

Sixth, people talked about relevance in relation to a third axis. The truth is, it already does contain a nationalist/internationalist third axis, which I didn’t make explicit in the headline, but is there in the description of every faction.

I can easily point out each faction’s position on this axis if necessary, but I think it takes away from the clarity/face value strength of the classification

He wanted to keep it simple. With principal components analysis, one can find out how long the longest components are, to see what will capture the variation in members' votes.

Seventh, people may have noticed that this is awfully similar to the Pew Typology and tbh, I did use that as inspiration for this model, but it’s not totally similar, as the Pew Typology is voter based and my typology is ideology/policy based, yielding slightly different results.

Eighth, I also want to clarify that I don’t presume that all the factions have similar support, to the contrary, some are rather small in support, while others may be up to 40 percent of a party’s voter base. That is why I described the supporter demographics of each faction.

Lastly, before I release the maps, I want to thank everyone for tagging along with this. A warm welcome to all the new followers too! It garnered way more interest than I expected and I hope you found it interesting/somewhat truthful!

Btw, don’t expect me to do tweets/threads like these every week, this is the product of a thought process that has been going on for months.

Then
DutchModerate ✝ on X: "Now, here are the gubernatorial and senatorial maps, sadly the Representatives map takes a bit more time than I expected and will be posted as an answer on this tweet tomorrow/on Wednesday. (pic link)" / X
and
DutchModerate ✝ on X: "As promised, here is the US Representatives map: (pic link)" / X

 

[laughing dog]

Of course she's racist. She's a Democrat.

Do you have any support for this bare (barren) assertion?

I need to support the claim that she's a Democrat? She's their nominee for Loki's sake!

Ha ha ha
You really think that is an honest response to pood's question?
Tom

Sadly, history suggests the answer is yes.